BHANWARI DEVI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the widow Smt. Bhanwari Devi aggrieved of the th order of the Dy. Director, Ordinary Insurance Fund rejecting her claim under the Group Personal Accident Insurance Scheme for the government employees.

(2.) THE petitioner's husband Shri Ram Niwas was serving as a Teacher in Government Primary School, Chitani, Police Station, Mundwa. On 9. 8. 97 when her husband was working on his own farm house, he alleged to have received electric shock at Tube Well. He was taken to the hospital, where he was declared dead. THE doctor issued a certificate Annexure-2 certifying that Ram Niwas died due to electric shock. Petitioner submitted a claim vide application dated 6. 9. 97 for grant of benefit of Group Personal Accident Insurance as her husband expired due to electric shock. THE application was forwarded by the third respondent Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti, Mundwa to the second respondent i. e. Dy. Director, Ordinary Insurance Fund, jaipur. Along with the application, the petitioner also submitted a report dated 1. 9. 1997 of the S. H. O. , Police Station, Mundwa District, Nagaur. It appears from the said letter that an inquiry was conducted by the S. D. M. , nagaur under Sec. 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and it was found that Ram Niwas died of electric shock. However, the petitioner was informed under communication dated 24. 11. 1998 that her claim has been rejected. THE petitioner widow approached to this Court by way of writ petition. This Court by order dated 10. 12. 99 instead of admitting disposed of the writ petition with the observation that the petitioner may file a fresh claim for Group Personal Insurance after supplying the documents as demanded under letter dated 24. 11. 1998 or such explanation for non-availability of those documents as may be available to the petitioner. THE Court also observed that fresh claim should be considered by the Department objectively. THE petitioner submitted a fresh claim as per the directions of this Court. However, the second respondent rejected the claim on the ground of delayed F. I. R. and the fact that there was no post- mortem of the dead body. This way the petitioner has approached to this Court in second round.