NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. vs SMT. SUSHMA CHAUHAN

UKHC010020572018

2026:UHC:9890-DB

Office Notes,
reports, orders or
proceedings or
directions and
Registrar’s order
SL.
Date
No.
COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
with Signatures
SPA/59/2018

National Insurance Company Ltd. –Appellant
Versus
Smt. Sushma Chauhan & others --Respondents


Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, A.C.J.
Hon’ble Subhash Upadhyay, J.
Mr. Prabhat Pande, learned counsel for the
appellant.
2. Mr. Atul Bahuguna, learned counsel for
respondent no.1.
3. Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, learned counsel for
respondent no.2.
4. Mr. M.S. Bisht, learned Brief Holder for the State
of Uttarakhand/ respondent nos.3 to 6.
5. Mr. Himanshu Pal, learned counsel for Oriental
Insurance Company / respondent no.7 through V.C.
6. This intra-court appeal is filed by National
Insurance Company Ltd. challenging judgment dated
03.11.2017 rendered by learned Single Judge in
WPMS No.391 of 2009. By the said judgment, the
appellant was directed to pay a sum of ₹5 lakh to the
respondent (widow of Late Vishan Singh Chauhan)
with interest @ 9% per annum.
7. Operative portion of the impugned judgment is
reproduced hereunder:
“7. The District Magistrate/District Election Officer vide
letter dated 06.01.2006 made a request to make the
payment of insurance to the petitioner. The State Election
Commission sent a letter to the Branch Manager of the
respondent no.6-company on 17.01.2006. The claim of the
petitioner, as noticed hereinabove, was rejected on
26.12.2005. The panchnama was prepared and the dead
body was sent for postmortem examination. It has come in
the postmortem report dated 07.10.2005 that the viscera
was preserved. It was with great difficulty that the same
was sent for FSL examination. The copy of FSL report is on

UKHC010020572018

2026:UHC:9890-DB

record. According to FSL report, no poison was detected in
the viscera.
8. According to the reply filed by the respondent no.6, the
petitioner could be given insurance money for the death of
her husband, in case, he died due to bodily injury from
accident caused by external, violent and visible means.
9. The fact of the matter is that the case of the petitioner
for insurance was rejected without waiting for FSL report.
The case of the petitioner was rejected on 26.12.2005 and
the FSL report is dated 07.04.2011. According to
postmortem report, the cause of death could not be
ascertained. In these circumstances, the viscera was
preserved.
10. How the respondent no.6 came to an abrupt conclusion
that the petitioner’s husband died due to stomachache or
other aliment, has not been explained. The husband of the
petitioner, as per the contents of the reply filed by the
respondent no.1, has died on elections duty.
11. The State Government has obtained the insurance
policy by paying a sum of Rs.7,02,525/- The policy was
signed on 23.09.2005. The prolonged correspondence has
taken between the various functionaries of the State
including Election Commission, District Magistrate and
police. In these circumstances, as noticed, hereinabove, the
possibility of the petitioner’s husband dying of accident
cannot be ruled out. He was 32 years old at the time of his
posting on elections duty. He was hale and hearty. No
poison was found in the viscera. The cause of death, as per
the postmortem report could not be confirmed. It is a fit
case where the principles of res ipsa loquitur would apply.
Petitioner’s husband was put on election duty and he died
during the election duty.
12. The Court can take judicial notice of the fact that the
violence takes place during elections and to allay the fear of
the employees put on elections duty, the insurance cover is
obtained.
13. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Annexure No.9
dated 26.12.2005 is quashed and set-aside. The respondent
no.6-company is directed to pay a sum of Rs.5.00 lakh to
the petitioner alongwith interest @9% per annum, within a
period of ten weeks from today.”

8. It is not in dispute that National Insurance
Company had provided group insurance cover to
Home Guards serving in the State of Uttarakhand for
a period of one year w.e.f. 04.02.2005 to 03.02.2006.
9. Late Vishan Singh Chauhan, husband of
respondent no.1 was serving as Home Guard who
died during election duty in District Haridwar on

UKHC010020572018

2026:UHC:9890-DB

07.10.2005. His widow staked claim under group
insurance cover, however, her claim was repudiated
and the State Election Officer was informed about the
same by the appellant. Thus, feeling aggrieved,
respondent filed WPMS No.391 of 2009, which was
allowed by learned Single Judge.
10. Appellant has challenged the judgment
rendered by learned Single Judge only on the ground
that under the group insurance cover provided by
appellant, dependents of the Home Guard were
entitled to a sum of ₹1 lakh in case of his death,
therefore, the direction issued to appellant to pay ₹5
lakh to the respondent is unsustainable.
11. Attention of this Court was drawn to the policy
bond which is enclosed as Annexure-CA1 to the
counter affidavit filed by appellant before the Writ
Court.
12. Perusal of the said policy bond reveals that
insurance cover of ₹1 lakh was provided by appellant
to 3299 Home Guards serving in the State of
Uttarakhand.
13. We find substance in the submission made by
learned counsel for appellant. Since appellant
provided insurance cover to the extent of ₹1 lakh to
persons serving as Home Guards, therefore, direction
issued by learned Single Judge to pay ₹5 lakh to
respondent deserves to be modified.
14. We, accordingly, partly allow the appeal; the
impugned judgment dated 03.11.2017 is modified by
providing that appellant shall be liable to pay a sum
of ₹1 lakh with interest to the respondent in terms of

UKHC010020572018

2026:UHC:9890-DB

the group insurance cover provided by the appellant.
15. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that
appellant has deposited ₹5 lakh in the Registry of this
Court pursuant to order dated 28.02.2018, out of
which 50% was released in favour of the respondent,
therefore, Registry is directed to refund the balance
amount in favour of appellant, within two weeks of
his making application to that effect.
16. Respondent shall be at liberty to claim benefit
of insurance cover provided by Oriental Insurance
Company Ltd. before appropriate forum.




(Subhash Upadhyay, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, A.C.J.)

30.10.2026 30.10.2026

SS/PP