Volume 2 Issue 7

Nyayik Samachar Youtube Logo (3).png

Supreme Court puts a question to a state-owned insurance company whether it has a conscience

Date of News: 


Date of Publication: 


Unique ID:


Name of the Author: 

Soumya Kanti Mandal

Field of Law: 

Insurance Law

Content of News:

The Supreme Court has condemned its agony on the occasion of legal journey of a farmer and his wife against Mighty State owned insurance company to claim rupees ? 2 lakh compensation for their son, a young labour was knocked off by a truck. The incident caused the trauma of deep disturbance ,faced by the farmer couple, where the court expressed. Its anguished Justice division, Richard wondered where the insurance company in its social ethics at all. Justice Chandrachud wrote in the recent judgement for the bench ,where he criticised the insurance company and also added �when will high and Mighty state owned insurance company realise its social conscience? Our concerns has been deeply disturbed by the manner in which farmer and his spouse have been left to the mercies of legal procedure. Should the insurers have dragged the parents to the High Court over the award of ?2.64 Lakh for the death of their wage earning son?� The young man got struck by truck and died in October 2004, while he was unloading goods. The truck lost its control and knocked him down into a tree. The young man, son of the farmer and his spouse, was receiving a monthly salary of ?2400. The compensation of the tragedy calculated at ?2,64,895. New India students Co. Limited appealed at the Irish High Court, where they argued that there is no material proof to establish the wages payment. Hence Orissa High Court have upheld the decision in favour of the insurance company. Subsequently, the couple appealed at Supreme Court over Justice Chandrachud mentioned that the deceased was an informal worker. Such type of employees are not provided wage receipts. The court has ordered the insurance firm to pay the compensation of ?2,64,895 ,and along with the expenses, the court also held that the couple were entitled to the rupees ?1 lakh towards their litigation cost and expenses.