Compensate for loss of life on duty

Uttar Pradesh Home Guards had taken an insurance policy from United India Insurance. It listed the names of the 29,000 Home Guards eligible for death coverage and loss of both eyes or both limbs. The policy tenure was from September 27, 2004 to September 26, 2005 and covered these home guards from the date of joining duty till the time of being relieved from duty. However, the policy failed to specify the manner in which to interpret joining of duty and relieved from duty.

Through a government order issued by the U.P. Home Guard Headquarters, all the District Commandants were informed that the insurance included the period of travelling from one’s place of residence to the place of duty and returning back home from duty.

Laxmi Narayan was assigned Durga Puja duty on October 21, 2004. While going home for a meal, he was shot dead along the way. His widow, Indrawati Devi, lodged a claim. The insurer repudiated it on the ground that he was not on duty when he was killed.

Indrawati filed a consumer complaint against United India Insurance as well as against the Commandant of Pratapgarh District Home Guards. The insurer defended the claim stating that Laxmi Narayan was not on duty. The police report stated that he was on his way home for a meal.

The District Forum allowed the complaint and ordered the insurer to settle the claim. United India appealed to the Uttar Pradesh State Commission which set aside the Forum's order and held that the claim had been rightly rejected the claim. Indrawati challenged this order through a revision petition.

The National Commission observed that the sole issue to be decided was whether Laxmi Narayan could be considered to be on duty at the time he was shot dead. It observed that the insurance policy did not specify when a home guard would be deemed to have joined duty and relieved from it. However, in the notification sent by the Home Guard Headquarter to all the District Commandants, it was mentioned that a home guard would be considered to be on duty right from the time he set out from home for the place of duty, and till the time he returned home. In the light of the notification, Laxmi Narayan would be deemed to be on duty while travelling home from his place of duty. The Commission observed that Laxmi Narayan was merely going home for his meal at 11 PM. Durga Puja celebrations continue till late i n the night, which implied that he would return to duty after a meal. Even otherwise, assuming that the i ncident had taken place after his assignment for the day was over, he would still be deemed to be on duty till the time he reached home. So, either way, Laxmi Narayan would have to be considered to be on duty when the was shot and killed.

Accordingly, by its order of April 6, 2017, delivered by Justice V.K. Jain, the National Commission restored the decision of the District Forum holding the insurer liable to settle the claim. It directed United India to pay the claim amount of ~2 lakh along with 9 per cent interest within six weeks from the date of its order.

A Home Guard would be considered on duty from the time he set out from his home and until he returned