Delhi High Court: A petition was filed by the petitioners who are wives of deceased pilots employed by Pawan Hans Helicopters Ltd. for an operation of respondent 2 in Naxal Infested Areas, seeking a direction against the respondent 1 and 3 to make the payment of the additional insurance coverage amount of Rs.30 lakhs each, to both the petitioners, along with interest accrued thereon at an appropriate rate and other corresponding directions. Navin Chawla, J., directed respondent 1 to pay an amount of Rs.30 lakhs to each of the petitioners over and above the amount which has already been paid along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the death of the husbands of the petitioners till the date of payment.
Petitioner 1 and Petitioner 2 are spouses of deceased pilots who were employed on contractual basis by respondent 1 from the year 2010 and 2008 respectively. The respective husbands of the petitioners had unfortunately died in a helicopter crash on 19-10-2011. It is alleged that at the time of the said helicopter crash, the husbands of the petitioners were working as pilots employed by respondent 1 for an operation of respondent 2 in the anti-Naxal operations.
Thus, the petitioners filed a grievance stating that Respondent 1 provided only Rs. 30 lakhs under an existing insurance policy and Rs. 5 lakhs ex-gratia, instead of the enhanced Rs. 60 lakhs coverage under a lapsed additional insurance policy for pilots flying in Naxal-Infested Areas, which was not renewed after 03-09-11 due to non-payment of premiums. They argued that the lapse in policy renewal by Respondent 1 resulted in them being deprived of additional compensation when the accident occurred, despite later renewing the policy on 20-06-12 with a different insurer, asserting they should not suffer due to negligence of Respondent 1.
Counsel for the petitioners submitted they had a legitimate expectation that the additional insurance policy, initially granted due to the hazardous nature of anti-Naxal operations, should have been renewed. They cited a pivotal letter dated 03-09-09 from Petitioner 2’s husband, which requested enhanced insurance for pilots operating in Naxal-infested areas. This request led to the initial grant of additional insurance.
Counsel for Respondent 1 challenged the maintainability of the petition, highlighting a similar case withdrawn in another High Court. On substantive grounds, they contended that the additional insurance was not renewed due to specific requirements for named coverage mandated by Respondent 3, which were not fulfilled. Additionally, they asserted that the accident did not occur during an anti-Naxal operation but during a routine exercise, thereby rendering the additional insurance irrelevant.
The Court examined the records and acknowledged that while the original Rs. 30 lakh insurance payout was undisputed, the second policy aimed to provide additional coverage specifically tailored for high-risk operations. It noted that pilots engaged in missions within Naxal-infested areas continued to be covered under the original policy, thereby substantiating the petitioners’ claim of a legitimate expectation for additional coverage. The Court delved into the Legitimate Expectation Doctrine, which forms an integral part of both Indian and common law, holding public authorities accountable for promises or established practices. It referred to established precedents emphasizing fairness and the obligation of public authorities to act consistently and honor commitments unless justified otherwise.
The Court observed that respondent 1 itself felt the need to take an additional policy for the employees who were working in the Naxal-Infested Areas. This policy was renewed for at least two years and was sought to be renewed even for the third year, however, such request for renewal remained pending because of exchange of correspondences between the respondent 1 and the respondent 3. The husbands of the petitioners had no part/role to play in such exchange of correspondence between respondent 1 and respondent 3, or in the delay in renewal of the policy. As far as they are concerned, it is not even shown or contended that they were aware that they would no longer be covered by the additional cover of a policy. Therefore, the doctrine of legitimate expectation would be fully applicable to the facts of the present case and the respondent 1 cannot deny the payment of the additional cover of Rs.30 lakhs to the petitioners only for its own lethargy or inability to obtain the renewal of the subject policy within time.
Thus, the Court held that the petitioners were entitled to the additional Rs. 30 lakh each, thereby reinforcing the doctrine of legitimate expectation. The Court further held Respondent 1 accountable for the lapse in policy renewal and directed them to promptly disburse the additional insurance amount along with accrued interest to the petitioners.
[Annie Thomas v. Pawan Hans Helicopters Ltd., 2024 SCC OnLine Del 4520, decided on 01-07-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Mr. Aayush Agarwala and Mr. Ajit Pudussery, Advocates for petitioner
Mr.Puneet Taneja, Mr.Manmohan Singh Narula and Mr.Amit Yadav, Advs. Mr.Ripu Daman Bhardwaj, CGSC with Mr.Kushagra Kumar, Adv. for UOI/BSF. Mr.Vikas Bhadauria, Adv. for R-3.
