RUBI DEVI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD.

(2.) THE present application has been filed by the petitioner claiming to be beneficiary under the Janta Accident Insurance Policy of the National Insurance Company. On her behalf, it is asserted that her husband late Shiv Kumar Singh had taken a Janta Accident Insurance Policy. He was accidentally shot by some criminals and died. She came to know of this policy. Being a beneficiary, she made an application laying her claim thereunder. Having received the claim, the Insurance Company then issued her bond certificates which she subscribed and filed. Now she is told that her claim is being rejected on the solitary ground that it was filed late. It was required to be filed within one month of the mishappening whereas the claim was filed after two months. This is the solitary ground for rejection of the claim. The Insurance Company has appeared and filed a counter affidavit. Heard the learned counsel for the Insurance Company. He submits that the Insurance Company was well within its right to reject a belated claim application. Secondly, it is now submitted that this was an Insurance Accident Policy which did not cover the claim of the petitioner. Having considered the matter, this Court has to consider whether the stand taken by the Insurance Company in their letter of rejection is correct or not. In their letter of rejection, the only ground for rejecting the claim of the petitioner is belated application. It is not said that the claim was even otherwise not entertainable. It is well settled principle that where a public order has been publicly made and implemented, it cannot be supplemented or supplanted by subsequent reasons or affidavit and tried to be explained as to what was meant or what persuaded it to issue the order. Here, the order of rejection mentions only one ground disentitling the petitioner and that is delay. Therefore, the respondents are precluded from raising any other plea to defeat the claim of the petitioner.

(3.) COMING to the validity of ground as taken by the Insurance Company of delay, I may point out that the insurance contract was a contract between the Insurance Company and the late husband of the petitioner. The terms therein with regard to laying of claim could only bind the contracting party. The beneficiary may or may not be even aware of the policy and cannot be said to be bound by those terms. Here, the contract as between the insured and the Insurance Company was to lay the claim within one month of the mishappening. This was known to the insured but certainly not to the beneficiary. Beneficiary is virtually an illiterate lady. She applied. Her application was entertained. It was not rejected outrightly as a belated application. Bond papers were supplied. She filed them. Even at that moment, it was not said that the application was belated. Therefore, to take this plea at this stage to deny her benefits is not permissible. In my view delay in lodging the claim could not be fatal to the claim.