SUSHILA DEVI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One Hare Ram Sah was a constable in Bihar Police. He was allotted Brass No. 385. At the material time, he was attached as body-guard to the Dy. Supdt. of Police (Town), Bhagalpur. On 20.8.1993, while with the Dy. Supdt. of Police, he was killed in an encounter with criminals. On that date, the slain police constable, like all other police personnel in the State, was covered by an insurance policy taken out by the Director General and Inspector General of Police, Bihar. Under the policy, a constable was, insured against accidental death for rupees one lakh. Therefore, on Hare Ram Sah, getting killed by criminals his nominee should have got the insured amount. But the information with regard to his killing was not given to the Insurance Company within the time stipulated in the conditions to the policy; the information was given to the insurance company several months after the policy had lapsed and on that ground the insurer rejected the claim. The petitioner, who claims to be the wife of the slain constable Hare Ram Sah, was thus forced to come to this court in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for a direction to the Insurance Company to make payment of the insured amount for the accidental death of her husband; alternatively, she prays that the concerned authorities in the police department should be directed to make payment of the amount to her.

(2.) In the counter affidavit filed by the officers in the police department, it is plainly admitted that the death of the constable Hare Ram Sah was fully covered by the insurance policy but the liability is sought to be shifted to the insurance company and it is stated that the insurer was not justified in rejecting the claim on the plea of delayed information. In the show cause filed on behalf of the highest police officer, namely, the Director General-cum-Inspector General of Police, Bihar, it is stated (vide para 8) as follows :

(3.) In the facts and circumstances of the case, the claim of the petitioner appears to be irresistible and the only question that requires consideration is whether the liability to make payment would lie with the insurer or with the concerned officers in the police department for their default in giving information with regard to the killing of the constable to the insurer within the stipulated time.