High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
A.K.Goyal v. State of U.p. - WRIT TAX No. 165 of 2005  RD-AH 609 (3 March 2005)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 165 of 2005
Akhil Kumar Goyal vs. State of U.P. and others.
Hon'ble R.K.Agrawal, J.
Hon'ble Prakash Krishna, J.
By means of the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner- Akhil Kumar Goyal seeks the following reliefs:
A. to issue writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 17.11.2004 issued by the respondent no.3 as contained in Annexure-3 to the writ petition.
B. to issue any other writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to immediately pay amount to the petitioner under Accident Insurance Scheme.
C. to issue any other writ order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
D. to award the cost of the petition to the petitioner."
Briefly stated the facts giving rile to the present writ petition are as follows:
According to the petitioner his son, Nikhil Goyal applied for registration as a dealer under the provisions of U.P. Trade Tax before the Assistant Commissioner, Trade Tax, Khand-5, Agra- respondent no.3. The registration certificate applied under the provisions of the U.P. Trade Tax Act and the Central Sales Tax Act was issued on 10th April, 2003 with effect from 1st April, 2003. Unfortunately, the petitioner's son died on 17th January, 2004 in an accident near the railway line, Police Station Tundla, District Firozabad. The petitioner lodged the claim for payment of the amount of Accident Insurance with the Assistant Commissioner- respondent no.3. The said application was filed on 19th March, 2004. The respondent no.3 after examining the matter informed the petitioner vide letter dated 31st March, 2004 that he has no information regarding the Accident Insurance Policy whether it is in force or not and he has sought the information from the State Government. Subsequently, vide letter dated 17th Novmeber, 2004 the petitioner has been informed that the Accident Insurance Scheme was not in force during the period 1st October, 2003 and 31st March, 2004 and, therefore, no amount is payable to him.
We have heard Sri Swapnil Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.R.Jaiswal, learned standing counsel for the respondents.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as the petitioner's son was registered as a dealer on 1st April, 2003 and the policy of Accident Insurance which was for a period of one year was in force during the period 1st October, 2002 to 30th September, 2003 and the petitioner's son having died in an accident on 17th January, 2004, the policy would be deemed to be effective in the case of the petitioner's son till 31st March, 2004 and, therefore, he is entitled for the claim of Accident Insurance money. The contention is misconceived. It is not in dispute that after 30th September, 2003, the Accident Insurance Policy taken by the State Government was not in force. The payment of the amount of insurance under the Accident Insurance Policy is admissible only when the accidental death occurred during the currency of the policy. In the present case, on the date of death the Accident Insurance Policy was not in force, therefore, the claim of Insurance money is not admissible.
The writ petition lacks merit which is hereby dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.