Parminder Kaur vs State Of Punjab And Others

Jagmohan Bansal, J

The petitioner through instant petition under Article 226/227 is seeking setting aside of letter dated 20.03.2025 (Annexure P-7) whereby respondent-HDFC Bank (Respondent No.6) has informed official respondent No. 3 that accidental claim of her husband has been rejected.

The petitioner’s husband was working with Punjab Police as Home Guard. On 01.12.2021, he suffered gunshot injury due to accidental firing of a bullet which resulted in his death. The petitioner being widow of said employee preferred insurance claim as per policy of the State Government. The HDFC Bank vide communication dated 20.03.2025 has rejected insurance claim on the ground of delay in intimation.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that delay was on the part of official respondents, not on her part. The State was duty bound to pursue her claim whereas State has deflected from its responsibility.

PER CONTRA, learned State counsel submits that there was delay on the part of department in submitting petitioner’s claim to HDFC. An inquiry has been initiated against erring officer. The department again forwarded petitioner’s claim to HDFC, however, HDFC has rejected her claim alleging that employee had committed suicide.

Faced with this, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an inquiry was conducted wherein it was found that it was accidental gunfire, thus, it is absolutely wrong to allege that employee had committed suicide.

Heard the arguments and perused the record.

The petitioner has raised disputed questions of fact. This Court cannot adjudicate disputed questions of fact especially when HDFC Bank is a private organization.

In the wake of above discussion and findings, this Court is of the considered opinion that petition deserves to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed. The petitioner is at liberty to avail remedies as permissible by law.

Pending Misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.