IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU C.C.C.A.No.101 OF 2007 Between: M/s. New India Assurance Company Limited .....APPELLANT AND Smt. K. Padmakumari and another ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU C.C.C.A.No.101 OF 2007 JUDGMENT: This appeal, under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is directed against the order and decree, dated 02.11.2006, in O.S.No.585 of 2004, on the file of XII Additional Senior Civil Judge (Fast Track Court), City Civil Court, Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby, the suit filed for declaration that respondent No.1/plaintiff alone is entitled for the insurance claim of Policy No.4750210 (Long Term Janata Personal Accident Policy) and for consequential mandatory injunction against appellant/defendant No.1 to pay the amount covered by the insurance policy with interest at 12% per annum and costs of the suit, was decreed. 2. Respondent No.1/plaintiff is the widow of late K. Venkateswara Rao, who took a fifteen year Janata Personal Accident Insurance Policy bearing policy No.4750210 from the appellant/defendant No.1, on 03.05.1999 for Rs.5,00,000/- with his father as nominee. On 03.12.2001, both the policy holder and the nominee expired in a road accident. Thereafter, respondent No.1 made a claim to the appellant – insurance company. Respondent No.2/defendant No.2, who is the brother-in-law of respondent No.1/plaintiff, also made a parallel claim. The appellant advised the respondents herein to produce the Succession Certificate from appropriate authorities or a direction from Court of law to settle the claim. The trial Court, vide the impugned order, declared respondent No.1/plaintiff alone is entitled to receive the policy amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and directed the appellant to pay the policy amount to respondent No.1 together with interest at 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of payment of Rs.5,00,000/-. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant No.1 contended that there is no fault on the part of the appellant - Insurance Company in paying the amounts to respondent No.1/plaintiff after making a claim by her; that as there were rival claims, after enquiry, the appellant advised the respondents to obtain necessary Succession Certificate from appropriate authorities, so that they would pay the amount covered under the policy to the persons entitled in accordance with law; that there was delay on the part of the respondents in producing the necessary documents and hence, he prays to reduce the interest granted on the policy amount. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1/plaintiff contended that respondent No.1 is the wife of the deceased policy holder; that therefore, she alone is entitled to receive the amount covered by the policy; that even if there is a rival claim, the appellant - Insurance Company ought to have deposited the policy amount into the Court, which would have fetched interest; that therefore, the impugned order needs no interference by this Court and hence, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 5. The present appeal is filed with regard to grant of interest on the policy amount of Rs.5,00,000/-. The factual matrix is not in dispute. Even assuming for a moment that there was a rival claim, that cannot be a ground for the appellant - Insurance Company in not depositing the policy amount into Court. The appellant knows that the policy holder and the nominee died and the policy amount has to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased policy holder. In such a case, in all fairness, the appellant ought to have deposited the amount covered by the accident policy to the credit of the suit so that the successful party, in the suit, can withdraw the said amount. Respondent No.1/plaintiff lost the opportunity of making a request to the trial Court to keep the amount in a fixed deposit so that it would fetch some interest during the pendency of the suit. However, granting of interest at 12% per annum on the policy amount appears to be excessive. Even if the amount is kept in fixed deposit, respondent No.1/plaintiff will get interest at 8% per annum only. Hence, the interest payable by the appellant on the policy amount is reduced from 12% per annum to 8% per annum. 6. Accordingly, the C.C.C.A. is allowed to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J March 28, 2011 Note: Issue C.C. in ten days. B/o. MD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU C.C.C.A.No.101 OF 2007 March 28, 2011