IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 7420 of 2007 Between: Rekadi Ankaa @ Venkayamma W/o Late Sathiraju R/o C/o Palepu Seshamma D. No. 51-2-35, Near Saibaba Rice Mill, Narasimha Road, Jagannaickpur, Kakinada, East Godvari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 United India Insurance Company Ltd., repby Branch Manager,Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner of Fisheries, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 3 The Director of Fisheries, Government of A.P., Hyderabad 4 The Assistant Director of Fisheries, Amalapuram Division, Amalapuram. East Godavari District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ or Order or Direction moreparticularly one inthe natureof WRit of Mandamus declarign the action of the respondents 1 to 4 herein, in not settling petitioner insurance Claim under the Group Accident Insurance Policy issued by the 1st respodent since 11-1-1991 till to-day for which the petitioner is legally entitled to, as Highly illegal, arbitrary, un reasonable, un Lawful, consequently directthe resoibdebts nire oarticularly the 1st respondnet to settle petitioner Insurance claim bypaying me the amount of Rs. 1,5,000/- with interest with immediate eﬀect, with any further delay inthe interest of justice and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper inthe circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.MURALI KRISHNA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR FISHERIES The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 7420 of 2007 ORDER: The son of the petitioner was a ﬁsherman by profession. A group insurance scheme was taken out to, cover the risk of the ﬁshermen in Jagannathapuram village. It is stated that he went for ﬁshing on 09.01.991 in the sea and on account of capsizing of the boat, he died, while the others in the boat have survived. A claim was submitted to the 1st respondent, with whom the group insurance policy was taken out. The claim was rejected, on the ground that it was not presented within the stipulated time. The petitioner states that the claim was made within time and even the matter was taken to the notice of the National Human Rights Commission and despite the repeated directions and reminders, the 1st respondent did not release the amount. A counter aﬃdavit is ﬁled on behalf of the 1st respondent. It is stated that several claims covering the lives of the ﬁshermen in the village were settled. A sum of Rs.5,62,500/- was paid as early as on 16.06.1993 and the claim of the son of the petitioner was not settled, because it was presented at a belated stage. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent and the learned Government Pleader for Fisheries. The very object of taking out the group insurance scheme is to cover the risk of the ﬁshermen. It is not in dispute that the son of the petitioner died, on account of tilting of the boat in the middle of the sea. There cannot be a more genuine case than the one presented by the petitioner. Apart from submission of claims by the individuals concerned, even the Government Oﬃcers, such as District Collector, have evinced interest and have been pursuing the matter from time to time. The claim of the petitioner was also the subject matter of discussion by the National Human Rights Commission. A perusal of the proceedings, dated 16.16.1993, issued by the 1st respondent discloses that the claim of the petitioner was not settled, only on the ground that it was submitted at a belated stage. It is not as if that any period of limitation is prescribed under any Statute. Once, the factum of death is not disputed and the matter has been pursued by various authorities as well as the individual, the 1st respondent cannot stand on technicalities. Further, the sum is meager viz., 15,000/-. Hence, the writ petition is allowed and the 1st respondent is directed to release the amount of Rs.15,000/- to the petitioner within one (1) month from today. In default, the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of accident till the date of payment. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 30.10.2008 JSU ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRT} THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 7420 of 2007 Date: 30.10.2008 JSU