IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO:23425 of 2001 Between: B.Kishan Rao S/o. Surya Rao R/o. H.No.3-7-157, Vavilalapalli, Karimnagar. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Chief Secretary, General Administration Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Collector, Karimnagar. 3 The United India Insurance Company Limited, Rep. by its Branch Manager, Karimnagar. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.I.AGA REDDY Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 & 2: AGP FOR REVENUE Counsel for Respondent No.3: SMT. V.RATHNA KUMARI The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled for a writ of certiorari to quash Memo No.C1/5544/2000, dated 07.08.2001 issued by respondent No.2. The petitioner sought for a consequential direction to respondent No.2 to grant compensation to him in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.235, dated 07.06.1997. The petitioner is the owner of house bearing No.2-75/4 of Raganedu Village, Peddapalli Mandal, Karimnagar District. The said house was admittedly, blasted by the extremists on 21.12.1999. In accordance with G.O.Ms.No.270, dated 26.02.1996 issued by the State Government providing for payment of compensation towards loss sustained to the person or the property of the victims of extremists, respondent No.2 evaluated the damages suﬀered by the petitioner. However, the petitioner’s request for grant of compensation was turned down by respondent No.2 by the impugned memo with an advice to the petitioner to settle his claim with respondent No.3 - insurance company by furnishing required documents, as the same was having valid insurance policy. In the counter-aﬃdavit ﬁled by respondent No.2, she admitted that the petitioner’s house was burnt by extremists and the Evaluation Committee estimated the total damages caused to the said house at Rs.3,16,000/-. She stated that the petitioner initially approached respondent No.3 claiming insurance under Policy No.050801/11/11/51 of 1999 and later, he ﬁled a notarized aﬃdavit before the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, Peddapalli to the eﬀect that his house bearing No.2- 75/4 was blasted, but the same is not covered by the insurance policy and that on 04.11.2000, the petitioner ﬁled a petition before the answering respondent wherein he stated that while he is the owner of house bearing No.2-75/4, the house bearing No.2-75/5 was insured and that on the said ground, respondent No.3 has refused to pay the insurance. She further stated that respondent No.3 in it’s letter, dated 26.07.2001 informed that the insurance claim of the petitioner is still pending due to non-submission of required documents etc., and, therefore, by the impugned memo, she instructed the petitioner to settle the claim amount with respondent No.3 by filing necessary documents. In the counter-aﬃdavit ﬁled by the Assistant Manager of respondent No.3, it is inter alia stated that house bearing No.2-75/4 of Raganedu Village is not covered by the insurance policy, as the petitioner was having ﬁre insurance policy for the house bearing No.2-75/5. He, however, admitted that the petitioner insured house bearing No.2-75/5 of Raganedu Village for the period from 10.06.1999 to 09.06.2000 for Rs.4,00,000/- for superstructure and Rs.20,000/- for compound wall and that as the insurance policy does not cover house bearing No.2-75/4, the answering respondent is not liable to pay insurance. At the hearing, Smt. V.Rathna Kumari, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.3 placed before the Court two documents, namely, the certiﬁcate, dated 20.03.2002 issued by the Panchayat Secretary of Raganedu Gram Panchayat, Peddapalli Mandal and also the Fire Loss Assessment Report, dated 31.05.2000 of the Surveyor and Loss Assessor. In the ﬁrst mentioned document, it is clearly stated that House No.2-75/5 was changed as House No.2-75/4 following the revision undertaken by the Gram Panchayat. This certiﬁcate clearly fortiﬁes the stand of the petitioner that mentioning of House No.2-75/5 was a mistake for 2-75/4. In the Fire Loss Assessment Report, the Surveyor valued the insurance liability at Rs.2,45,294/- after deducting the depreciation amount and excluding the value of the compound wall. Inasmuch as the petitioner’s property was covered by the valid insurance scheme, respondent No.3 is liable to pay the insurance amount. As regards the assessment report, respondent No.3 shall give notice to the petitioner and after considering the explanation, if any, furnished by him, it shall determine the loss and pay compensation in accordance with the insurance policy, to the petitioner. It shall complete this exercise within a period of three (3) months from today. The writ petition is accordingly, allowed to the extent indicated above. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 17th OCTOBER, 2008. kvni