COVID-19 Death Compensation : Supreme Court Directs States Not To Reject Claims Merely Because They Are Filed Offline

"All States have to accept applications on merit whether filed online or offline…There shall be no rejection on the ground that application is filed offline. So, wherever the claims are rejected on the ground that they are filed offline, the State Government is to review that decision within one week…"

While hearing the matter pertaining to the disbursal of ex-gratia compensation for COVID-19 deaths, a Bench comprising Justices M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna observed that State Governments have rejected a large number of applications. As directed earlier, the Bench reiterated that otherwise eligible claims should not be rejected on technical grounds. In case there are technical issues, an opportunity ought to be given to rectify them.

"From the report submitted, it appears that in many States a high number of applications are rejected. We reiterate and direct that the applications shall not be rejected on technical ground. If it is found there is any technical glitch, the State Governments should give one opportunity to them to clear the defects, as the ultimate goal of the state as a welfare state is to provide some solace and compensation to the victim families."

The Bench added -

"In the meantime States should make all endeavours to pay the compensation, maximum within a period of 10 days from receipt of claims."

The Bench raps Maharashtra for rejecting claims filed offline

The Bench was perturbed to note that Maharashtra had rejected applications merely because they were filed offline. It was concerned that if an otherwise eligible claimant, for some reason, fails to submit the application online, then how is it fair that their applications were rejected outright. The Bench reminded Advocate, Mr. Rahul Chitnis appearing on behalf of the State of Maharashtra that being a welfare State they were duty bound to disburse the payment to the eligible claimants.

"Your State has rejected applications filed offline. You have to consider applications, both offline and online…Suppose someone cannot file an application online, then you will reject them? If some application is given offline accept them. Tell your Chief Minister, that they are not doing charity, as a welfare state it is their duty."

It added -

"Can there be 61,000 rejections?"

Maharashtra has rejected 61,848 claims out of the 2,27,107 claims received by it. Some of these rejections were merely on the ground that the applications were submitted offline. Deprecating such action, the Bench directed the State Government to share relevant particulars of rejection with Maharashtra Legal Services Authority within a period of one week. The authority in consultation with the nodal officer to be appointed by the State, would review if the rejections were made on technical grounds. If found so, an opportunity would be given to the claimants to rectify their application.

"From the report submitted, it appears that so far as the State of Maharashtra is concerned, 61,848 claims were rejected out of 2,27,107 claims received. It is also reported that so far as the State of Maharashtra is concerned some applications are rejected on the ground they are filed offline. Such rejection is deprecated and it is in the teeth of the order passed by this Court earlier.

[…]

The State of Maharashtra is directed to give full particulars of the applications rejected along with the reasons to the Member Secretary of Legal Services Authority, Maharashtra within one week from today who will scrutinise and consider the grounds for which the applications are rejected and if found that they are rejected on technical ground he may in consultation with the nodal officers appointed above, see to it that those person are given opportunity to rectify the mistake by reconsidering their application."

The applicant, Advocate, Mr. Gaurav Bansal informed the Bench that in Karnataka some of the cheques issued to the claimants have bounced.

Advocate, Mr. Raghupathy appearing on behalf of the State of Karnataka submitted that he had no such information and would seek instruction regarding the same.

The Bench also took note of the fact that the Rajasthan Government has applied for a further budgetary provision of Rs. 10 crore for making the ex-gratia payments, when they are supposed to disburse the money from the State Disaster Management Fund, which is already available with them. The Bench observed that as per the latest affidavit filed by the State, the claims received are in process to be verified.

Senior Advocate, Dr. Manish Singhvi appearing on behalf of the State of Rajasthan apprised the Bench that the State has made payments with respect to more than 95% of the claims received. However, he submitted that in the verification process they are trying to ascertain the money goes only to the wives of the deceased. So, where the payment has been made to the son, the whole process has to be revisited to ensure that the ex-gratia compensation is disbursed to the wife. This process, he claimed, was time consuming. Yet, he assured the Bench to disburse the compensation to the eligible claimants at the earliest.

"We are trying to facilitate. Sometimes, son is given, we are trying to give it to the wife of the deceased. Our efforts are to reach and not to reject them…give us one weeks' time we will do it."

[Case Title: Gaurav Bansal v. Union of India MA 1805 of 2021 in WP(C) No. 539 of 2021]

Click Here To Read/Download Order