IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 29TH JULY 2010 / 7TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 15583 of 2010(W) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------- GINI MARY,W/O.LATE MARSILY, KADAPPURAM PURAMPOKE,MUTHAKKARA BEACH(NORTH) KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.N.SASIDHARAN UNNITHAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL EXECUTIVE, KERALA FISHERMEN'S WELFARE FUND BOARD, M.P.APPAN ROAD,VAZHUTHACAUD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE COMMISSIONER,KERALA FISHERMEN'S WELFARE FUND BOARD,PONKUNNAM,THRISSUR-680 002. 3. DIRECTOR,KERALA STATE INSURANCE DEPARTMENT HOUSING BOARD BUILDING, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 4. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,FISHERIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. ADV. MR. ASOK M. CHERIAN – SC MR. M.A. ASIF – GOVERNMENT PLEADER. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 15583 of 2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: COPY OF FIR NO.199/07 OF PALLITHOTTAM POLICE. EXT.P2: COPY OF POST-MORTEM CERTIFICATE DT 10.11.2007. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE QUOTATION FOR INSURANCE DT 4.10.06. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE FAX MESSAGE DT 9.11.06. EXT.P5: COPY OF LETTER DT.15/11/06 OF R2. EXT.P6: COPY OF GOVT. ORDER NO.535/06/F&PD DT 30/11/06. EXT.P7: COPY OF APPLICATION DT. 19.6.2009 OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE CLAIM FORM DT. 9/11/07 OF R1. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT 16/3/2010 IN W.P.(C)8711/2010. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE. S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.15583 OF 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the widow of a fisherman. Her husband was a member of the Kerala Fishermen's Welfare Fund maintained by the second respondent. All members of the Welfare Fund are insured with the third respondent. The petitioner's husband died on 9.11.2007. The petitioner's grievance in this writ petition is that despite a recommendation by the second respondent, the third respondent is not disbursing the insurance amount. 2. The learned Government Pleader on instructions submits that the petitioner's husband died of cerebral hemorrhage, which does not come within the purview of the policy issued by the third respondent. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the insurance amount is the contention raised by the learned Government Pleader. 3. I have heard both parties. It is not disputed before me that the husband of the petitioner died in the course of his W.P.(c)No.15583/10 2 profession while fishing. The petitioner has produced the documents to show that the insurance amount has already been paid to the legal heirs of the fishermen who died of heart attack in the course of their profession. Therefore, I do not think that the third respondent can be validly denied the insurance amount to the petitioner. 4. Accordingly, I dispose of this writ petition with the following directions: The second respondent shall forward the discharge voucher for Rs.1 lakh to the third respondent within one week. The third respondent shall disburse the insurance amount within one month from the date of receipt of the discharge voucher. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE acd W.P.(c)No.15583/10 3 W.P.(c)No.15583/10 4