MADAN KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is son of Late Bindeshwari Singh, a deceased employee of the State Government. Father of the petitioner was an Assistant Teacher in Government Middle School, Dawat in the district of Rohtas at Sasaram. He was assigned a duty to conduct Panchayat election Sanjhauliya block. He met with an accident on 20.4.2001 while returning from Sanjhauliya after the election. An insurance policy was taken by the State Government from the Oriental Insurance Company for insurance of all such Government employees who were appointed for conducting election. Death of petitioner 'sfather on election duty has not been controverted by the State. Though Insurance Company has raised objection in this regard.

(2.) COUNSEL appearing for Insurance Company has stated that since the election was held on 19.4.2001 and at 8.30 P.M. on the same day all papers relating to the election were already submitted by the petitioner 'sfather when election was over. Father of the petitioner met with an accident on the next date, when election duty has already been over on 19.4.2001. On 20.4.2001 when he met with an accident he was not on election duty, as such his duty is not covered under the policy of the State Government, the reliance has been placed on a decision in the case of Regional Director, E.S.I. Corporation and Another vs. Francis De Costa and Anr. (A.I.R. 1997 S.C. 432) wherein the word in course of employment has been considered and defined in case of workmen under the Workmen Compensation Act. The word "in course of employment" has been held only till the time the employee starts from his residence for discharging his duty till end his duty. So far the returning from the work is concerned it has not been considered to be covered under Sec.2(8) of the Workmen Compensation Act, as defined "in the course of employment".

(3.) ANOTHER objection which has been raised by the counsel appearing for the insurance is that claim papers were submitted by the State much after expiry of the period of limitation. After eight months of the death of the petitioner 'sfather the claim papers were submitted, after expiry of the period for submission of claim under the policy. The Insurance Company is not responsible to make payment of claim to the petitioner for this reason as well. It has also been submitted that this policy was in between the State and the Insurance Company. So far the State employees are concerned they were the beneficiary as the premium was paid by the State Government. The State Government has failed in its duty in submitting the claim paper within the time as such the liability to pay insurance amount has been shifted from the Insurance Company to the State Government.