2021 (9) TMI 1495 - HC - Indian Laws

Challenge to Insurance claim (which was allowed) - time limitation - claim filed after a period of about three months and 15 days from the date of accident - whether this short delay can be condoned? - HELD THAT - There is no dispute that insurance was valid upto 13.09.2017 and accident took place on 29.08.2017. The claim was filed on 20.12.2017, i.e., after a period of about more than three months. Policy itself provides condonation of delay upto two months even after the Policy came to an end. Therefore, in strict sense, the delay is just more than one month. There is no clause in the Policy which specifically bar the consideration of claim by Court concerned even beyond the period of two months. The decision passed in GAUTAM YADAV VERSUS STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. 2020 (11) TMI 1106 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT is stayed by the Apex Court in THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VERSUS GAUTAM YADAV ORS. 2021 (8) TMI 1382 - SC ORDER , though the payment was made by the Insurance Company. Considering that delay in filing the claim petition is just above one month and Insurance Policy is a welfare policy and that though the question of law is pending before Supreme Court but claim was paid in that case, thus the short delay in filing the claim petition can be condoned. No other submission is made on behalf of the petitioner, therefore, the writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to an order passed by Permanent Lok Adalat regarding an insurance claim under a specific scheme.
2. Interpretation of the time limit for filing a claim under the insurance policy.
3. Consideration of a judgment regarding the limitation period for filing claims under the scheme.
4. Evaluation of the delay in filing the claim and the applicability of the policy provisions.

Analysis:
1. The writ petition was filed by the Insurance Company challenging an order passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat directing the payment of a claim under the "Mukhyamanti Kisan Evam Sarvhit Beema Yojna." The Insurance Company argued that the claim was filed after the specified time limit of one month as per the policy agreement.

2. The Insurance Company contended that the claim was filed more than three months after the accident, exceeding the time limit set in the policy. However, the Respondent's counsel argued that the claim was filed within a reasonable time frame and referred to a judgment by a Division Bench that extended the limitation period to three years, deeming the original limitation as unreasonable and arbitrary.

3. The court noted that the insurance policy allowed for a two-month condonation of delay even after the policy's expiration. The judgment cited by the Respondent was under consideration by the Supreme Court, with a stay order in place. Despite the slight delay in filing the claim, the court considered the welfare nature of the policy and the fact that the Insurance Company had made payments in a similar case where the limitation period was extended.

4. Ultimately, the court dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing that the delay in filing the claim was just over a month, the policy did not explicitly bar consideration of claims beyond two months, and the matter of law was pending before the Supreme Court. No additional arguments were presented by the petitioner, leading to the dismissal of the petition.