IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.5061 of 2008 Between: Chikuri Padma W/o.Late Chikuri Maraiah R/o.3-7-105, Rajivnagar Suryapet, Nalgonda District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Life Insurance Corporation of India, rep. by its Branch Manager, Suryapet Branch (64H), Nalgonda District 2 Suryapet Municipality, rep. by its Commissioner, Nalgonda District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ or any appropriate writ or writs or direction/s more particularly in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in not paying the assured sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the petitioner under Jeevan Jyothi Policy bearing No.643161297 after deducting the sum of Rs.12,682/- as being illegal, arbitrary, and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents to jointly and severally pay Rs.1,00,000/- to the petitioner after deducting the sum of Rs.12,862/-. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.B.VIJAYSEN REDDY Counsel for Respondent No.1: MR.V. VENKATARAMI REDDY Counsel for Respondent No.2: MR. POLISETTY RADHA KRISHNA (SC) The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.5061 OF 2008 ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled seeking a Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in not paying the assured sum of Rs.1,00,000/- under Jeevan Jyothi policy bearing No.643161297, to the petitioner, by deducting a sum of Rs.12,682/-, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to pay Rs.1,00,000/- to the petitioner after deducting a sum of Rs.12,862/-. It is the case of the petitioner that her husband late Chikuri Maraiah, while working as Water Supply Worker in the 2nd respondent Municipality, died in harness on 09.12.2004. As per the service regulations, he subscribed to a Life Insurance Policy, namely, Jeevan Jyothi Policy bearing No.643161297 of the 1st respondent Corporation, for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, for which monthly premium of Rs.518/- was being deducted from his salary by his employer-the 2nd respondent and remitted to the 1st respondent. While so, after the death of her husband, when the petitioner approached the 1st respondent claiming the assured sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, under the said policy, the 1st respondent has paid only Rs.12,682/- by way of cheque and informed that the 2nd respondent has not remitted the premium amount for the month of September 2004 and therefore the assured sum cannot be paid as per the conditions of the policy. The grievance of the petitioner is that the 2nd respondent is obligated to deduct the premium amount from the salaries of the subscribers every month and remit the same to the 1st respondent and, for the failure of the employer, she cannot be denied the assured sum under the policy obtained by her husband. In the counter-aﬃdavit ﬁled on behalf of the 1 st respondent Corporation, it is stated that the Corporation covers the risk for the entire sum assured under the policy as long it receives the premium on due dates and if the premiums are not received within the grace period, in terms of policy contract, the Corporation is not bound to cover the risk under the policy. The premiums for the months of April, June, July, August, September, October and November in the year 2004 in respect of the policy of the husband of the petitioner were remained unpaid as on the date of his death and as such the policy lapsed in terms of the policy contract. It is further stated that upon intimation of the death of the husband of the petitioner, the Corporation has settled the death claim for paid up value along with accrued bonus as per the terms and conditions of the policy and paid Rs.12,682/-, after deducting an amount of Rs.25,000/- towards deposit under fresh policy and, therefore, an amount of Rs.37,682/- stands paid to the petitioner. However, there is no material on record to prove the alleged deduction of Rs.25,000/- towards deposit under fresh policy. In the counter-aﬃdavit ﬁled by the 2 nd respondent Municipality, it is stated that the premium amount for the month of September 2004 under the policies of the husband of the petitioner and other employees was paid on 02.02.2005 and the same was received by the 1st respondent on 03.02.2005, by which time the husband of the petitioner died. In proof of the said contention, a copy of the statement, along with which a cheque was sent for an amount of Rs.61,073/- to the 1st respondent towards premium of the policies of 42 employees, including the husband of the petitioner, for the month of September 2004, is filed. According to the learned counsel for the 1st respondent, since the premium amount has remained unpaid by the time the husband of the petitioner died and the same has been remitted after his death, the policy of the husband of the petitioner must be deemed to be lapsed and therefore the petitioner is not entitled for the assured sum under the said policy. This contention merits no acceptance. It is to be noted that the policies of the remaining 41 employees, premium amounts of whose policies have been paid along with the premium of the policy of the petitioner’s husband, are alive. Therefore, the policy of the petitioner’s husband should also be alive and, merely because the petitioner’s husband died, the 1st respondent cannot contend that his policy lapsed in view of belated payment of premium amount. If really the policy lapses in view of non-remittance of premium amount in the prescribed time as per the conditions of the policy, the same shall be applicable to the remaining 41 employees also and their policies also have to be lapsed on that ground. But, their policies are alive and there is no answer from the 1st respondent as to how they are alive and how the policy of the husband of the petitioner lapsed. I am of the opinion that this approach made by the 1st respondent is pedantic, atrocious and deserves to be deprecated. Further, no notice of any kind was issued either to the petitioner or to the employer of her late husband intimating the lapse of the said policy on account of belated payment of premium amount. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed and the 1st respondent is directed to pay the assured sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and any further amount as per the entitlement of the petitioner in view of the death of her husband, under Jeevan Jyothi policy bearing No.643161297, after deducting Rs.12,682/- which was already paid to the petitioner, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs. _________________ JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU 10th November, 2008. IBL