THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CONTEMPT CASE No.948 of 2011 Date:02.09.2011 Between: Smt K.Indira ..... Petitioner AND M.V.Naga Raju, Secretary, APSRTC, Employees’ Thrift and Co-Operative Credit Society Limited, Hyderabad and another. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri M.Kotaiah Counsel for Respondent No.1: Sri A.K.Jayaprakash Rao Counsel for Respondent No.2: Sri Ravi Shankar Jandyala The Court made the following: ORDER: This Contempt Case is filed alleging willful disobedience of order, dated 08.02.2011 in Writ Petition No.8486 of 2010. I have heard Sri M.Kotaiah, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri A.K.Jayaprakash Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Sri Ravi Shankar Jandhyala, learned counsel for respondent No.2. The petitioner is the widow of one K.Muralidhar Reddy, who was employed as driver of Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation. Her husband was also a beneficiary under the Janata Personal Accident Insurance Policy (for short ‘insurance policy’) and a member of Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Employees’ Thrift and Co-Operative Credit Society Limited. The petitioner’s husband died in an accident on 20.01.2009. As the petitioner’s claim under the insurance policy was not settled, she filed Writ Petition No.8486 of 2010. This Court by order, dated 08.02.2011, disposed of the said Writ Petition by holding as under: - “From the pleadings of the respective parties, this Court is convinced that it is only respondent No.4 which has to examine the claim for payment of insurance amount and respondent No.3 ought not to have returned the documents on any ground including that the claim is time barred. Since respondent No.1 is stated to have forwarded the documents to respondent No.4 with a request to respondent No.3 to process the petitioner’s application, respondent No.3 is directed to process and send the same to respondent No.4 within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Respondent No.4 shall consider the claim for payment and communicate the decision thereon to the petitioner and respondent Nos.1 and 2 within a period of one month of receipt of the application by it.” Alleging that despite the peremptory directions given by this Court for considering and settling the petitioner’s claim, respondent No.2 has failed to comply with the said direction, the petitioner filed the present Contempt Case. In compliance of the notice of this Court, respondent No.2 filed counter-affidavit wherein it is inter alia averred that respondent No.1 (wrongly addressed as respondent No.3 in the counter-affidavit) has served the copy of order of this Court along with the claim documents on 05.04.2011, and that, on the same day, the claim was processed and rejected. It is further stated that due to inadvertence the rejection of the claim was not informed to the insured (in writing) though the same was informed to the insured orally and that on 16.08.2011, the same was communicated to the petitioner as well as the insured. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has placed before the Court a copy of the rejection order wherein the claim of the petitioner was rejected on the ground of delayed intimation. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the rejection of the petitioner’s claim cannot be sustained in law in view of the agreement between respondent Nos.1 and 2. He also submitted that even if respondent No.1 has committed delay in communicating the death of petitioner’s husband for processing the claim, the agreement between respondent Nos.1 and 2 contains clauses which provide for condonation of such delay. I am afraid the above submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner touch upon the merits of the order of rejection. The scope of this Contempt Case being confined as to whether respondent Nos.1 and 2 have committed deliberate violation of the order, dated 08.02.2011, of this Court, the validity or otherwise of the rejection order is not subject matter of this Contempt Case. If the petitioner feels aggrieved by the said rejection order, she shall be free to avail appropriate remedy in order to question the same. Since this Court is convinced that there is no willful violation of the order of this Court by either of the respondents, the Contempt Case is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedy for questioning the rejection order. As a sequel to dismissal of the Contempt Case, C.A.No.614 of 2011 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is dismissed as infructuous. __________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 02nd September2011 DR