MP High Court Orders State To Disburse ₹50 Lakh Insurance To Kin Of Anganwadi Worker Who Died In Accident While Performing COVID-19 Duties

Facts of the case were that the Petitioner's mother was serving as an Anganwadi Worker in her village during the first wave of COVID-19. As a part of her duties, she was on her way to distribute nutritious food to the people when she stumbled upon a stone and injured herself. Later, she succumbed to her injuries at the hospital.

The Petitioner moved an application before the State Authorities to avail the compensation under Mukhyamantri Covid 19 Yodha Kalyan Yojana. The scheme was floated by the State Government to provide financial assistance to the family of its employees who died while performing COVID-19 duties during the pandemic. However, her claim was rejected on grounds that the death of her mother was not an "accident" for the purpose of the scheme and that the procedural requirements were not carried out. Aggrieved, the Petitioner moved the Court.

Arguing her case, the Petitioner submitted that the word "accident" has not been defined in the policy document. It was asserted that considering the facts of the case, the incident that led to her mother's death would indeed be termed as an accident. With regard to the procedural requirement, it was pointed out that as per the policy, in case of an accidental death, a FIR is to be registered and postmortem be carried out. But in her mother's case, neither of the two were required as she died 24 days after her accident on account of complications of the injury. Hence, it was contended that the Petitioner was wrongly denied the benefits of the scheme by the State.

Per contra, the State argued that a mere fall on the ground cannot be termed as an accident. It was further submitted that since the conditional requirements as laid down under the policy were not fulfilled, the Petitioner was not eligible to avail the benefits of the scheme.

Examining the submissions of parties and documents on record, the bench comprising Justice Subodh Abhyankar found merit in the submissions of the Petitioner. Rejecting the arguments put forth by the State, the Court opined that not every accident would require filing of FIR-

It appears that the Government lost sight of the fact that it is not necessary that in all the accidents there should be an FIR and a postmortem report. The Concise Oxford English Dictionary defines the word 'accident' as"1. an unfortunate incident that happens unexpectedly and unintentionally; 2. something that happens by chance or without apparent cause." Thus, in the considered opinion of this court, while extending the benefit of the Scheme, the respondents are required to keep in mind the said extended definition of the word 'accident', and should not adopt a myopic view to restrict the applicability of the Scheme only in those cases where the FIR has been lodged and the postmortem has been conducted.

Perusing the policy document, the Court noted that the underlying objective of the scheme was to provide financial support to the family of the State Government employees who died while performing COVID-19 duties amidst the pandemic. Therefore, the Court held, mere non-fulfillment of procedural requirements would not override the fundamental purpose of the scheme-

On careful perusal of the scheme i.e. "Mukhyamantri Covid 19 Yodha Kalyan Yojana" and the underlying object of the same, which is to provide some succour to the family members of the employees of the State Government, who died while performing Covid 19 duties during Covid -19 period, this Court is of the considered opinion that so far as the requirements of the documents to be furnished in respect of the accidental death of an employee is concerned, the same is only procedural in nature and cannot be said to override the fundamental purpose of grant of relief to the Covid-19 workers (also known as Covid warriors) and their family members.

Scrutinizing the procedural requirements of the policy in the factual background of the case, the Court observed that the said conditions did not envisage a situation such as that in the Petitioner's case-

These conditions apparently do not envisages the situation as in the present case where the deceased employee has died by her accidental fall while performing Covid 19 duties and subsequently, on account of its complications, she has died within 24 days of suffering the said injury on her leg. Apparently her fall on the ground was not on account of any negligence on the part of any person, but due to her sheer bad luck that she stumbled upon a stone. In any case, when a person falls on the ground it does not necessitate lodging of any FIR in expectation that he/she would succumbed to the injuries in the said fall and when such injured has died in the Hospital only while being treated for her injury and the resultant complications, her postmortem was also not necessary as it was otherwise not a medico legal case.

With aforesaid observations, the Court held that the State's denial to extend the benefits of the scheme to the Petitioner was unfair and unjust. Accordingly, the Petition was allowed, and the State was directed to pay a sum of Rs.50 lakhs to the Petitioner as promised under the scheme.