IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 15958 of 2007 Between: S.Vara Lakshmi W/o Late Datta Ram R/o 2-2-1125/33, New Nallakunta, Hyderabd-500 044. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The New India Insurance CompanyLimited DCI-112230000, 8th floor, free press Hosue, Free Press Journ Marg Nariman Point, Bombay rep bits Chairman. 2 Taurus the Starshare Brady House, Veer Narimum road, Fort Bombay-400 001 .....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 particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring that the petitioner is entitled to receive the claim amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of the accidental death of her husband and consequently direct the respondents to pay an amount of Rs. 1.00,000/- together with interest @ 12% per annum in the interest of justice and to pass such other or further orders as it deem just and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.BHASKAR Counsel for the Respondents.: -- The Court made the following : O R D E R : Petitioner is the wife of Datta Ram, who purchased 100 shares. As per the terms and conditions of the policy linked to share certificates, the policyholder is entitled to 15 times of the net asset value at the commencement of the scheme. The policy holder- husband of the petitioner died on 10.05.2003. The fact of the death of the husband of the petitioner has been intimated to the 1st respondent on 20.05.2003. A request has been made to the 1st respondent for settlement of the claim. The relevant documents were also forwarded to the 1st respondent under letter dated 20.05.2003. Some correspondence took place between the petitioner and 1st respondent-Insurance Company with regard to settlement of the claim. Though 2 ½ years have been elapsed, there is no response from the 1st respondent-Insurance Company. Thus, the petitioner approached this Court invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. Despite notice being served on the respondents, they do not choose to enter appearance either in person or through a counsel. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the material available on record. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the shares purchased by the husband of the petitioner covers the personal accident risk and since the husband of the petitioner died in accident on 10.05.2003, the petitioner is entitled to claim the policy amount. 5. It appears the petitioner submitted a representation to the 1st respondent-Insurance company and her representation is stated to be pending. Such is the case, I deem it appropriate to direct the 1st respondent-Insurance Company to consider the claim made by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with the terms and conditions of the policy. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage. No costs. _____________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date: 16th June, 2008. cs ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRT}