IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 5149 of 2007 Between: C.H. Susheela, W/o.Late C.H. Srinivas, R/o. H.No.24-60/4, K.K.Nagar, Ashok Nagar, R.C. Puram, Hyd. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 National Insurance Co. Ltd., (Governmentof India Undertaking), Division-III, I , Shakepura Sardni, 6th Floor, Kolkatta-700 071. 2 National Insurance Company Ltd., ( Govt of India- Undertaking) Regional Office, Basheerbagh, Hyd. 3 Golden Multi Services Club Ltd., S.B. Mansion, 16 AN Mukerge Road, Kolkatta-700 001. .....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 an appropriate Writ or order or direction more particuarlly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in issuing the impugned proceedings of rejection by letterdt.7.3.2006 as illegal, arbitrary and setting aside the same as violative of the principles of natural justice and equity and consequently the 1st and 2nd respondent to release the claim amount of the petitioner vide Policy No. 100300/42/04/8200012 for a period of 8.9.2004 to 7.9.2005 and pass. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.VINOD KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.M.JEEVAN REDDY The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 5149 OF 2007 ORDER: 1. This writ petition has been ﬁled by C.H. Susheela assailing the action of the respondents 1 and 2 in not releasing the claim amount under policy NO. 100300/42/04/8200012. 2. The petitioner claims to be the wife of late C.H. Sreenivas. Her husband has taken Janatha Personal Accident Insurance Policy Claim vide Policy No. 100300/42/04/8200012 for a period from 8-9-2004 to 7-9-2005. Respondents 1 and 2 are the insurers. The insured, namely C.H. Sreenivas died on 23-7- 2005 at 10-45 p.m. The petitioner being the wife of the policy holder submitted a claim to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 on 20-9- 2005. All the required documents came to be submitted on 19- 10-2005. Her claim came to be rejected on the ground of delay. The delay in ﬁling the claim, according to the petitioner occurred as she was not well versed with the procedure of submitting the claim and of her not being aware of the policy prior to September, 2005. As soon as of her coming to know of the policy, she made a claim before respondents Nos. 2 and 3. 3. Rule nisi came to be issued on 15-3-2007. The petitioner endorsed in the writ petition that the third respondent is not a necessary party. 4. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 entered appearance and ﬁled counter aﬃdavit. D C. Baheti, Deputy Manager in the oﬃce of the ﬁrst respondent National Insurance Company has sworn to the counter aﬃdavit. It is stated in the counter aﬃdavit that as per condition No.15 of the Memorandum of understanding entered into with Golden Multi Services Club Limited-3rd respondent, claim must be intimated to Policy Issuing Oﬃcer within 30 days and all papers to be submitted within 90 days. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not aware of the policy taken by her husband, prior to September, 2005. When she came to know that her husband had taken insurance policy from respondents No. 2 and 3, she searched the house and found the policy documents. Thereafter presented a claim and thus delay occurred. The petitioner claim was rejected on the ground of delay. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 submits that the writ petition is not maintainable, since no mandamus can be issued to the respondents 1 and 2 to pay the policy amount. He placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Life Insurance Company Vs. Kiran Sinha[1].wherein it has been held that the High Court cannot direct the payment of money claimed under the Insurance Policy in a writ petition ﬁled under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indian. 8. Coming to the facts of the case on hand, the claim of the petitioner came to be rejected on the ground of delay in presenting the same. The petitioner oﬀered suﬃcient reasons for condonation of the delay. The cited decision is wholly inapplicable to the case on hand. 9. In that view of the matter, the rejection of the claim of the petitioner on the ground of delay, in the given facts and circumstances of the case, cannot be sustained. 10. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed setting aside the rejection letter dated 7-3-2006. Consequently, the respondents shall consider the claim of the petitioner in accordance with the conditions of the policy and pass appropriate orders. No order as to costs. _______________________________ Justice B. Seshasayana Reddy 15th October, 2008. KM THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 5149 OF 2007 15th October, 2008. [1] 1985 ACJ 657