HC orders Rs 25L payout in accidental death insurance case of constable

Dehradun: Uttarakhand high court directed Uttarakhand Gramin Bank to pay Rs 25 lakh with 5% annual interest to Damyanti Negi, widow of late constable Narendra Singh Negi, after holding that she could not be denied accidental death insurance benefits merely because her husband’s name was omitted from a list prepared under the bank’s ‘Complimentary Police Accidental Death Insurance Cover’ scheme.

” In its ruling, the court set aside the bank’s communication dated May 21, 2022, rejecting her claim.Justice Pankaj Purohit was hearing a dispute arising from the death of Negi, who was on deputation as a driver with the State Disaster Response Force (SDRF). The court recorded that he died in a road accident on Aug 7, 2021, in the course of service. It noted that Negi had maintained a salary account with Uttarakhand Gramin Bank since 2015, with his salary regularly credited to it.

A loan had also been sanctioned against the account.The insurance scheme came into effect on April 12, 2021, for police personnel whose salaries were disbursed through accounts maintained with the bank, with the premium to be borne by the bank. After Negi’s death, his widow sought benefits under the scheme, but the bank rejected the claim, stating that his name was not included in the final list of 676 employees covered under the policy and that no premium had been deposited in his case.

Rejecting this stand, the court held that the sole ground for denial was “unsustainable”. It found that the omission of the deceased’s name was an “administrative lapse” due to lack of coordination between the bank and the police department, and that the petitioner could not be made to suffer for a lapse beyond her control.The court also observed that the bank could not claim ignorance of the deceased’s status as police personnel when his salary account had been maintained there for years and a loan was linked to it. Calling the bank’s action arbitrary and violative of Article 14, the court held that it “could not take advantage of its own omission” and directed it to pay the insurance amount with interest from the date of entitlement until actual payment.