W.P.(C)--3007/2008. Case: S.D.SINGH Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.. High Court of Delhi (India)
| Case Number | W.P.(C)--3007/2008 |
| Citation | NA |
| Judgement Date | August 14, 2019 |
| Court | High Court of Delhi (India) |
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 3007/2008
S.D.SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Avadh Kaushik, Adv. with
Mr.Robin Singh, Advs.
versus
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr.Pankaj Singh Thakur,
Adv. for Mr. K.L.Nandwani, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
% J U D G M E N T
14.08.2019
1. These proceedings owe their origin to Memorandum, dated 6th
June, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as “the charge-sheet”), issued to the petitioner by the Assistant General Manager and disciplinary authority, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (the respondent herein, though impleaded in the name of its Chief Regional Manager), proposing to initiate an inquiry, against the petitioner, under Rule 25 of the General Insurance (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as “the CDA Rules”), and calling on the petitioner to submit his response thereto.
2. The charge-sheet contained four Articles of Charge, against the petitioner, numbered Articles of Charge 1 a) to c), and Article of
Charge No. 2. Article 2, of the Articles of Charge, stands dropped, and no further reference, thereto, is required, therefore, to be made.
3. Articles 1 a) to c), of the Articles of Charge, dealt with the period 1999-2000, during which the petitioner had settled certain allegedly bogus claims for cattle insurance. A brief reference, to these three sub-Articles of Charge, may be provided thus:
(1) Article 1 a) related to Cattle Policy No. 045631, favouring Parveen Singh. This policy was admittedly settled, by the petitioner, in favour of Parveen Singh, resulting in the issuance, to him, of cheque No. 430041, dated 23rd June, 2000, for ₹ 12,000/-. Regarding this claim, it was alleged thus:
(a) The petitioner had “caused the issuance” of the said policy, through the Development Officer D. K. Aggarwal, against payment of cash premium of ₹ 600/–, through an agent, Farukh Khan. It was alleged that D. K. Aggarwal had deposited the said pre-signed policy with Farukh Khan, as per the instructions of the petitioner.
(b) The period covered by the policy was altered, in the policy, from 7th January, 2000 to 6th January, 2003, to 27th February, 2000 to 26th February, 2003.
(c) The animal, covered by the said policy was shown, in the policy, as financed by the U. P. Sehkari Gramin Vikas Bank. However, the said Bank confirmed that the animal had neither been financed by it, nor was
intimation of death given by the said Bank. It was, therefore, alleged that the inclusion of the name of the Bank, in the policy, was done in order to show existence of Bank finance to a non-existent animal, so as to get the policy underwritten.
(d) In the claim intimation letter, the date of death of the animal, covered by the policy, was altered to 17th
March, 2000, by the Veterinary Surgeon, allegedly to facilitate coverage of the animal by the policy.
(e) The cheque, whereby the claim amount was disbursed by the respondent, initially reflected the name of the payee as “U. P. Sehkari GraminVikas Bank, A/c Parveen Singh”. The name of the payee was, thereafter, altered to “L. D. Bank, A/c Parveen Singh” and, again, thereafter, to “A/c Parveen Singh, S/o Darshan Singh”. It was finally, therefore, issued in favour of “A/c Parveen Singh, S/o Darshan Singh”, and the amounts covered thereby were withdrawn by Parveen Singh, through the Punjab National Bank, Moradabad Gate.
(f) Thus, it was alleged, the petitioner had approved a bogus cattle claim for ₹ 12,000/–, resulting in undue financial loss to the respondent.
(2) Article 1 b) covered a similar policy, No. 43941, for the period 27th October, 1999 to 26th October, 2000. The policy was
issued in favour of “Punjab National Bank, Salempur A/c Mahesh Chaudhary”. Two cattle claims, under the said policy, were settled, by the petitioner, vide cheques dated 8th May, 2000 and 29th January, 2001, each for ₹ 8000/–. In respect of this policy, it was alleged as under:
(a) The petitioner had “caused issuance” of the policy, through Yogesh Kumar Sharma, Development Officer.
(b) The Punjab National Bank confirmed that the animals, allegedly covered by the said policy, were neither financed by it, nor was intimation of the death given by the said Bank. As such, the inclusion of the Bank’s name in the policy was done in order to reflect the existence of Bank finance, to non-existent animals, so that they could be conveniently underwritten.
(c) The name of the payee in the claim cheque was altered to “Mahesh Singh”, and was validated by the petitioner. The amount of the cheque was, ultimately, credited into the Savings Bank account of “Mahesh Singh”, who was not connected to the insured animal in any way.
(d) Thus, it was alleged, the petitioner approved these bogus cattle claims, resulting in undue financial loss, to the respondent, of ₹ 16,000/–.
(3) Article 1 c), similarly, dealt with Policy No. 043940. The policy covered the period from 27th October, 1999 to 26th October, 2000, and was issued in the name of Punjab National Bank, A/c Smt. Kalawati, W/o Shri Mishri Singh”, on payment of premium of ₹ 1000/-, and covered two she-buffaloes. The claim was settled by two cheques, for ₹ 8000/- and ₹ 10,000/-, in favour of “Punjab National Bank A/c Smt. Kalawati”, respectively, which were credited into the Savings Bank account of Smt. Kalawati. Again, in respect of this policy, too, it was alleged as under:
(a) The inclusion of the name of the bank, in the policy, was only done in order to reflect financing of the animals by the Bank, so as to get the policy underwritten. The Bank, for its part, confirmed that the said animals had not been financed by it, and that it had not provided any intimation of the death.
(b) The insured person, i.e. Smt. Kalawati, had neither obtained any loan from the said Bank for these animals, nor had the Bank issued any Demand Draft towards the premium. The Demand Draft, whereby premium, for the policy, was paid, was, it was revealed, purchased against cash.
(c) These two animals, too, therefore, appeared to be non-existent.
(d) The petitioner had, therefore, it was alleged, approved two bogus cattle claims, resulting in undue financial loss to the respondent, to the extent of ₹ 18,000/-.
4. The charge-sheet also had, annexed thereto, a list of documents, and a list of witnesses, whereby the charges, against the petitioner, were proposed to be proved.
5. The petitioner responded, to the aforementioned charge-sheet dated 6th June, 2003, vide letter, dated 11th August, 2003, in which it was averred thus:
(i) As Branch Manager, the petitioner never caused issuance of any cattle policy. Issuance of cattle policies were always effected by the Development Officer, or by the Agent or Assistant of the respondent. As such, the allegation that the petitioner had “caused” issuance of the policies, to which the charge-sheet alluded, was baseless.
(ii) Farukh Khan had never worked as an agent of the respondent, during the period in issue.
(iii) Specifically, in respect of the three policies, relating to which individual sub-Articles of Charge had been issued, it was submitted as under:
(a) With respect to Cattle Policy No. 045631, covered by Article 1 a) of the Articles of Charge,
(i) the alteration, in the policy, of the period covered by it, from 7th January, 2000 to 6th January, 2003, to 27th February, 2000 to 26th February, 2003, was also done by the Development Officer
-
K. Aggarwal, and not by the petitioner, who could not, therefore, be blamed therefor,
(ii) the petitioner had no knowledge of the said alteration, nor was he involved, in any way, therein,
(iii) such policies were regularly issued by the Development Officer, as per the prevalent practice in the Branch,
(iv) though the petitioner had, undoubtedly, settled the said cattle claim, for ₹ 12,000/–, he did so, on the basis of the appropriate recommendation on scrutiny by the Assistant and AAO,
(v) the change of the date of death of the animal, in the Veterinary Surgeon report, had been effected by the Veterinary Surgeon, and no blame could be attributed to the petitioner therefor; indeed, the same date of death, i.e. 17th March, 2000, was reflected in the investigator’s report, the claim
note, the claim form and the banker’s death confirmation certificate, with the investigator mentioning, further, the post-mortem date of the animal as 18th March, 2000, which was also countersigned by the same Veterinary Surgeon,
(vi) these dates had been scrutinised by the Senior Assistant, who had prepared the claim note, and indicated that the animal had, in fact, died on 17th March, 2000,
(vii) all requisite formalities had, therefore, been completed, before the claim was settled by the petitioner, and
(viii) the name of the payee was first reflected, in the claim cheque, by including the name of the Bank; however, later, at the request of the bank, the name of the bank was removed, and the said change was countersigned not only by the petitioner, but also by another representative of the respondent, as there was a specific letter, of the bank, requesting that its name be not reflected in the claim cheque.
(b) With respect to Cattle Policy No. 43941, covered by Article 1 b) of the Articles of Charge,
(i) this policy, too, had been issued, not by the petitioner, but by the Development Officer Yogesh Kumar Sharma,
(ii) the name of the bank was reflected as “M/s PNB” in the policy itself, and that the allegation of inclusion of the name of the Bank was without basis,
(iii) though it was alleged that the Bank had confirmed that these animals had never been financed by it, the documents provided to the petitioner indicated that payment discharge vouchers were signed both by the insured person,
i.e., Mahesh Chaudhary (who signed as Mahesh Singh), as well as by the bankers,
(iv) the bankers had confirmed that Mahesh Chaudhary and Mahesh Singh were one and the same person, which was why, after obtaining...
To continue reading
Request your trial