IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No: 8229 of 2001 BETWEEN: Smt. K. Bhavani, W/o lage K.N.Gangadhara Rao, C/o K. Seeta Ramaiah, 4th line, Patelnagar, Baspatla, Guntur District. ... PETITIONER AND 1 Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Rep. by its Chief Managing Director, Oriental House, Asaf Ali Road, P.B.No.7037, A--25/27, NEW DELHI. 2 Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Rep. by its Divisional Manager, Pushpanjali Complex, Kothi, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the death of my husband, Late K.N. Gangadhara Rao with interest there on as arbitrary, illegal without the authority of law, violative of fundamental rights under Art.14, 21, of the Constitution of India and issue consequential direction to forthwith release the amount Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.L.RAVICHANDER Counsel for the Respondents: MR.S.AGASTYA SHARMA The Court made the following: ORDER: None appears. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that she is the wife of the Late K. Gangahdar Rao, who died on 06.01.2000 in a road accident while on duty and he being an employee of the Police Force of the Government of Andhra Pradesh, worked as Reserve Sub-Inspector and is covered by the Group Insurance Police, therefore, she is entitled for the insurance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- on account of the death of her husband. 3. Counter has been ﬁled stating that the claim of the petitioner has been settled and a cheque bearing No.385912 dated 06.06.2000 for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- was already handed over personally to the petitioner through the S.P. Grey Hounds on 12.06.2000 and having received the cheque towards the full and ﬁnal settlement of Rs.5,00,000/-, the petitioner is not entitled to state that she is entitled for a further sum of Rs.5,00,000/-. 3. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and as it is stated that the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- was already paid to the petitioner, I am of the opinion that nothing survives in the writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V. ESWARAIAH, J August 27, 2008 DSK