Court No. - 21
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 16193 of 2017 Petitioner :- Saroja Devi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Narendra Deo Shukla,Amit Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble V.K. Shukla,J.
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard Shri N.D. Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Vivek Shandilya, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondents.
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being finally disposed of at this stage without calling for a counter affidavit.
Saroja Devi wife of late Surendra Prasad Patel is before this Court assailing the order dated 27.5.2016 passed by the respondents by which the claim of the petitioner for extending the benefit of 'Krishak Durghatna Beema Yojna' has been denied.
Record in question reflects that the husband of the petitioner namely Shri Surendra Prasad Patel was joint owner of Arazi Nos.393, 213, 210 situated at Village Ahmadpur Phulwariya, Bhadohi and while he was going by his Motor Cycle No.U.P. 66-K-3206, an accident had taken place on 2.12.2015 at 9.00 PM with Car No.UP-66-J-0417 driven by unknown person in which he sustained serious injuries. He was initially admitted in Maharaja Balwant Singh, Government Hospital, Bhadohi on the same day, where he was medically examined and was referred to Trauma Centre, B.H.U. Varanasi but due to serious injuries he could not survive and died on 7.12.2015. The death certificate of her husband was issued by the Competent Authority on 30.12.2015. Smt. Vandana Jaiswal, Gram Pradhan of Village Ahmadpur Phulwariya, Vikas Khand Bhadohi had also issued the death certificate on 30.10.2015. The relevant medical report and death certificates dated 30.12.2015 and 30.10.2015 have been annexed as Annexure Nos.2, 4 and 6 to the writ petition. The petitioner had also lodged the first information report on 30.12.2015 at 15.50 hrs regarding occurrence of accident against unknown person/Car No.UP-66- 7-0417 under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304-A IPC, Police Station Bhadohi, which was registered as Case Crime No.0583 of 2015.
In this backdrop, on 4.1.2016 the petitioner preferred an application supported by a notarized affidavit before the District Magistrate, Bhadohi for ex-gratia payment of compensation under 'Krishak Durghatna Bheema Yojna', stating therein that her husband was the joint owner of Arazi No.393, 213, 2010 situated at Village Ahmadpur Phulwariya. He met with an accident on 2.12.2015 and died on 7.12.2015. On account of severe cold and fog, the postmortem of her husband could not be performed. The said application/affidavit was forwarded by the Area Lekhpal, Revenue Inspector, Tehsildar and Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bhadohi. Meanwhile the Tehsildar, Bhadohi had sent a letter dated 11.4.2016 to the petitioner for providing the copy of the postmortem report of her husband. By the impugned order, the claim of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that while submitting the notarized affidavit alongwith relevant papers, she had failed to furnish copy of the postmortem report of her husband.
In this backdrop, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been denied her legitimate claim by the respondents on the ground that she had failed to furnish the copy of the postmortem report. The action so taken by the respondents while passing the impugned order is against the very aim and object of the scheme in question and the guidelines framed for disbursement of the amount in question. All the relevant papers i.e. copies of first information report, death certificate and medical report were submitted before the respondents and the cause of death of her husband could easily be ascertained but the claim of the petitioner has been rejected in arbitrary manner. Her husband was recorded as owner of the agricultural land and now in his place, her name alongwith the names of her sons has been recorded in the revenue record. The relevant khatauni has been appended as Annexure-7 to the writ petition. It is sought to be contended that her husband late Surendra Prasad Patel was an agriculturist and after his death, the petitioner is entitled for grant of compensation.
Per contra, the claim of the petitioner has been objected by Shri Vivek Shandilya, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, appearing for the State respondents by submitting that as per scheme in question it was paramount responsibility of the petitioner to submit the postmortem report of the deceased and while rejecting the claim of the petitioner the respondents have not erred in law whereas the detailed guidelines have been provided wherein each and every case could be scrutinized strictly as per the Government order and as such, there is no infirmity or illegality in the order impugned.
We have proceeded to examine the record in question and find that the State Government has issued Government order dated 10.7.2014 framing guidelines for implementation of the 'Krishak Durghatna Bhima Yojna' for agriculturists of the State of Uttar Pradesh. The purpose of the scheme in question is to provide social security to the agriculturists and the members of their family. The concerned insurance scheme has been floated by way of financial assistance to the family members of the farmers in case of accidental death of farmers, obviously with the aim and object of reducing the rigours of the sudden loss of an earning hand and a person, who indulged in cultivation of the land. The State Government pays the premium to the insurance company and the said insurance company, in turn, is to pay the maximum amount of Rs.5,00,000/- to the family member of farmers in State of UP in case of accidental death of the insured. The ex-gratia payment is made with the sole object to rehabilitate the family who has lost their beloved one all of a sudden due to natural calamity or an Act of God. The ex-gratia payment means payment which is voluntary and charitable in nature and therefore, hyper technicalities should be ignored and equitable consideration should be kept in mind while deciding the matter in question. Such claims are to be seen just to mitigate the hardships of the claimants by way of equitable relief. It is the duty of the Government to safeguard the life and liberty of the people as guaranteed under Article 21 of Constitution of India.
In Lakshmi Devi vs. Union of India and ors 2015 LawSuit (All) 829, a Division Bench of this Court had considered the Circular/Government order, which provides for payment of compensation to the family members of the deceased under National Calamities Emergency Fund. In the said case, on account of non-furnishing the postmortem report the claim of Lakshmi Devi (supra) was rejected. Finally the Division Bench of this Court had proceeded to consider the aim and object of the scheme in question and allowed the writ petition with following observations:-
"In the instant case, the stand of the opposite parties is contrary to the Government Order dated 24.1.2005. A perusal of the Government Order dated 24.1.2005 would indicate that there is no mandatory requirement for furnishing post-mortem report to get ex-gratia payment, which can be granted on the basis of inquiry conducted by the Revenue Authorities and the Area Lekhpal. It would be relevant to point out that the opposite parties have failed to establish that the Government Order dated 24.1.2005 has been rescinded/annulled or superseded by the State Government.
Furthermore, no material has been brought on record by the respondents to show that the cause of death of the petitioner's husband was not due to lightening but due to any other reason. Therefore, it is clear that the impugned order has been passed without application of mind and considering all aspects of matter. Even otherwise, for grant of relief provisions should be interpreted very liberally to cover every victim of natural disaster.
For the reasons aforesaid, the impugned order dated 12.8.2011 is hereby quashed. Taking the holistic view of the matter, we direct the District Magistrate, Shrawasti, to pass fresh order for grant of ex-gratia payment in light of the aforesaid observation and the Government Order dated 24.1.2005 within a maximum period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
Subject to the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition is disposed of finally in above terms."
In the present matter, this is admitted situation that the death has occurred on account of accident and admittedly the first information report was lodged regarding occurrence of accident. The relevant papers have also been brought on record to show that the treatment of late Surendra Prasad Patel was undertaken at Trauma Centre, B.H.U. Varanasi but due to serious injuries he could not survive and died on 7.12.2015. The death certificate has also been issued by the competent authority and as such, it is not disputed that on account of the accident the death has occurred and due to severe cold and fog the postmortem of petitioner's husband could not be ensured and on this very sole ground the rightful claim of the petitioner cannot be negated.
Consequently, we allow this writ petition and quash the impugned order dated 27.5.2016 passed by the District Level Committee in so far as it relates to petitioner's case at serial no.4 only and the respondents are directed to consider and decide the claim of the petitioner, taking into consideration the holistic view of the matter.
Order Date :- 18.4.2017 RKP