Delay In Filing Insurance Claim Can't Defeat Genuine Compensation: Kerala High Court Upholds ₹7.5 Lakh Award To Disabled Toddy Tapper

In a recent judgment, the Kerala High Court refused to set aside a Lok Adalat order that directed an insurance company to pay compensation to a toddy tapper, who was injured in a fall from a coconut tree, even though the order recorded non-submission of insurance claim.Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. remarked that writ courts can refuse to interfere with orders with technical discrepancies, if the writ sought to be enforced would affect another person's right to life.The Court noted that in the present case, the writ petitioner is a company that wanted to set aside an award of compensation granted to a daily wagerer, who suffered permanently disability and incapacitated from working.“in cases where, the party approaching the court is a Corporate establishment having its roots spread all over the country with great financial stability, against an order passed by a public authority, in favour of a daily wage earner, who suffered an injury by which, he is permanently incapacitated to do the work he was engaged in. When doing such exercise, I find that this is not a fit case in which, writ jurisdiction of this court is to be invoked, and thereby interfere with the order impugned in this case… when the writ sought to be enforced by the petitioner affects the rights of the respondent to live with dignity, as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, this court can refrain from invoking such powers, even if there is some technical discrepancy in the order impugned in the writ petition” the Court observed.The party respondent in the case was a toddy tapper, who held a valid individual insurance policy with the petitioner company. One day, the respondent fell down while tapping toddy from a coconut tree and suffered 75% permanent disability. The respondent approached the Lok Adalat for Public Utility Services alleging that his claim was not entertained by the petitioner since the same was not submitted within time. An award was passed directing the petitioner to pay Rs. 7,50,000 as insurance benefit and Rs. 10,000 as costs. The Adalat relied on Asok Kumar v. New India Insurance Company Ltd and a 2011 circular of the IRDAI that instructed insurers not to repudiate genuine claims even if there is a policy condition on delay in giving intimation. The Adalat also took note of the fact that the accident occurred during the tenure of a valid policy.This order was challenged by the petitioner insurance company before the High Court. It contended that the order was illegal and suffered from discrepancies since the order itself records that no claim was submitted by the respondent. It was pointed out that the insured has a duty to submit claims on time and it is the insurer that has to process the claim, take a decision to grant compensation and quantify the amount. The Adalat went on to forego quantification and determined the claim, the insurer said.After hearing the parties and perusing the Adalat's observation, the Court was of the view that the order warrants no interference:“as far as an award passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat for Public Utility Services constituted under Section 22B of the Legal Services Authorities Act is concerned, same is final and the scope of interference in exercise of powers of this Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is very limited. Even if a different view is possible, than the view already taken by the Permanent Lok Adalat, it is not necessary for this Court to interfere with the said award. Only in cases where, the order is perverse or results in gross injustice to the party complaining of, an interference is required… the view adopted by the Permanent Lok Adalat was that the mere delay in raising the claim should not defeat the rights of the insured, in getting a compensation which he was otherwise eligible to.”The Court referred to the aim behind Permanent Lok Adalats for Public Utility Services and Section 22D of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. It then added:“it is a welfare legislation intended to protect the weaker sections of the society, by providing speedy and cost effective mechanism. Section 22D of the Act… In the said provision, the principles to be followed by the Lok Adalat have been provided, which would indicate that, the decision has to be taken by the Lok Adalat beyond pure technical hurdles that do not touch upon the vested rights of the parties.”The Court further remarked that the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution is discretionary and courts can refrain from invoking the jurisdiction if the same would affect another person's right to a dignified life.Thus, the Court dismissed the plea and refused to quash the impugned award.Case No: WP(C) No. 8666 of 2026Case Title: Star Health And Allied Insurance Company Limited v. Balakrishnan K.M. and Anr.Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 252Counsel for the petitioner: R.S. Kalkura, M.S. Kalesh, Harish Gopinath, H. Kiran, P.I. Najumal Hussain, Dilmaya P.Counsel for the respondents:...

Delay In Filing Insurance Claim Can't Defeat Genuine Compensation: Kerala High Court Upholds ₹7.5 Lakh Award To Disabled Toddy Tapper

K. Salma Jennath

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

K. Salma Jennath

Delay In Filing Insurance Claim Can't Defeat Genuine Compensation: Kerala High Court Upholds ₹7.5 Lakh Award To Disabled Toddy Tapper

K. Salma Jennath

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

K. Salma Jennath

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers