IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 4TH JUNE 2010 / 14TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 11173 of 2010(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- LILLY SURESHKUMAR, W/O.LATE SURESHKUMAR KALLUVILAPUTHENVEEDU,MULAVANA P.O., KANJIRACODE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.N.SASIDHARAN UNNITHAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE REGIONAL EXECUTIVE KERALA FISHERMEN'S WELFARE FUND BOARD, M.P.APPAN ROAD, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE COMMISSIONR,KERALA FISHERMEN'S WELFARE FUND BOARD PONKUNNAM, THRISSUR - 680002. 3. DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE INSURANCE DEPARTMENT, HOUSING BOARD BUILDING, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT FISHERIES DEPARTMENT,SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI.K.RAMESH ADV. SRI.ASOK M.CHARIYAN, SC, KFWFB FOR R1-2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).No. 11173/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS P1. COPY OF THE FIR OF KUNDARA POLICE. P2. COPY OF THE POST MORTUM REPORT. P3. COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DTD.5.5.07. P4. COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT DTD.19.7.07. P5. COPY OF THE PASS BOOK. P6. COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF GROUP INSURANCE SCHEME. P7. COPY OF THE CLAIM DTD.13.2.08 OF R1. sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 11173 of 2010 ================== Dated this the 4th day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the widow of a fisherman. Her husband was a member of the Fishermen's Welfare Fund maintained by the 2nd respondent. According to the petitioner, her husband died by accidental drowning while he was engaged in fishing operation, on 21.4.2007. All members of the Fishermen's Welfare Fund are covered by a Group insurance policy with the 3rd respondent. According to the petitioner, the petitioner is entitled to the policy amount from the 3rd respondent on account of the death of her husband. But despite a recommendation from the 2nd respondent in that regard, the amount is not being paid, is the grievance of the petitioner. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs; “i) To declare that the petitioner is entitled to a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- on the basis of Ext.P6 scheme and P7 recommendation. ii) To issue a writ of Mandamus or any other writ or order or direction directing the 3rd respondent to sanction the insurance benefit of Rs.1,00,000/- to the petitioner. 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. 3. Ext.P4 is the enquiry report submitted by the competent officer of the Welfare Fund Board, wherein it is categorically stated w.p.c.11173/10 2 that the husband of the petitioner died by accidental drowning while he was engaged in fishing activity. That being so, the 3rd respondent cannot deny the policy amount due to the petitioner. Therefore, this writ petition is allowed. The 3rd respondent is directed to pay the insurance amount due to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge