Delhi HC Allows Plea Seeking Additional Insurance Payments Filed By Wives Of Pilots Deceased In Helicopter Crash

The Delhi High Court has allowed a plea for additional insurance payments filed by the wives of pilots who died in a helicopter crash.

In that context, the Bench of Justice Navin Chawla observed that, "The doctrine of legitimate expectation is invoked when a public authority acts in a manner that leads an individual or a group to expect a particular outcome. It is based on the idea of fairness and consistency in action. It recognizes that a public authority's promise or past conduct/practice will give rise to a legitimate expectation to honour such promise or past practice. In India, it has come to be recognized by way of various judgments."

This writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, sought a direction for the respondents to pay an additional insurance amount of Rs.30 lakhs each to the petitioners, along with interest.

The petitioners' husbands had joined the first respondent as pilots on a contractual basis in 2010 and 2008, respectively. Both pilots tragically died in a helicopter crash on October 19, 2011, while working in anti-Naxal operations. The respondent only paid Rs.30 lakhs under one insurance policy and Rs.5 lakhs as ex-gratia. However, an additional insurance policy of Rs.30 lakhs, which would have covered the pilots, was not renewed beyond September 3, 2011, due to the respondent's failure to pay the premium.

The petitioners argued that this lack of renewal was due to the respondent's negligence, and they should not suffer for it. They based their claim on the doctrine of legitimate expectation, as previous insurance policies had been renewed timely. They also cited judgments to support their argument that the respondent should act fairly and that the court should award fair compensation.

Respondent No. 1 argued that the petition should be dismissed because a similar claim had been withdrawn from the Punjab and Haryana High Court by petitioner no. 2. On merits, they claimed the second insurance policy was not additional but necessary because the original policy did not cover pilots in Naxal-infested areas.

The renewal was attempted, but respondent no. 3 required the names of pilots to be covered, which was not feasible. Furthermore, the accident occurred during a routine sortie, not an anti-Naxal operation, so the pilots were only entitled to standard coverage. They contended that no legitimate expectation of additional coverage existed, as no representation was made to the petitioners or their husbands.

The High Court observed that, "the respondent no.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 no.1 and the respondent no.3. The husbands of the petitioners had no part/role to play in such exchange of correspondence between the respondent no. 1 and respondent no. 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."

In light of the same, the Court held that the doctrine of legitimate expectation would be fully applicable to the facts of the case at hand, and that respondent no.1 could not 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. 

Cause Title: Annie Thomas & Anr. vs Pawan Hans Helicopters Ltd. & Ors.

Click here to read/download the Judgment