IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.3076 of 2009 Between: P. Pavani W/o. Late P. Yadagiri R/o. Nalgonda. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Superintendent Engineer (Operations) APCPDCL, Nalgonda. 2 The Divisional Engineer (Operations) APCPDCL, Suryapet. 3 The Manager, National Insurance Company Divisional Office, 2nd Floor, Regency House, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MRS.K.RAJITHA Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 & 2:MR. P.R.BALARAMI REDDY Counsel for Respondent No.3: MR.N.MOHAN KRISHNA ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the inaction of the respondents in paying the claim amount under Group Janata Accident Policy to the petitioner on the death of her husband, as arbitrary, illegal and unjust. The husband of the petitioner joined as Junior Lineman in Andhra Pradesh Central Power Distribution Company Limited (APCPDCL) and worked under respondent No.2. At the time of his death in a road accident, he was working as Lower Division Clerk. The accident took place on 08.08.2004. The grievance of the petitioner is that though her husband was a holder of Janata Personal Accident Policy, the respondents have not paid the insured sum. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.3, it is averred that under the policy conditions, the insured (APCPDCL) shall forthwith give notice of death of the employee, to the insurer and that unless reasonable cause is shown, the insured shall, within one calendar month after the event, which may give rise to claim under the policy, give written notice to the insurance company with full particulars of the claim. According to respondent No.3, intimation was given for the first time on 25.08.2006, while the accident took place on 08.08.2004 and, therefore, the payment could not be made. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2, it is inter alia averred that the petitioner submitted death and legal heir certificate to the answering respondents on 23.08.2006, and immediately thereafter, they addressed a letter to respondent No.3. Thus, respondent Nos.1 and 2 sought to throw the blame on the petitioner. It is admitted by the learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and also respondent No.3 that it is the responsibility of the employer i.e. respondent Nos.1 and 2 to intimate respondent No.3 about the death of their employee forthwith or at any rate, within one month from the date of such death. Letter, dated 25.08.2006 addressed by respondent No.2 to respondent No.3, a copy of which is filed by the petitioner, reads as under: “With references to the above, it is to inform that Sri P.Yadagiri, JLM was expired on 08.08.2004 due to accident, but the intimating of the death is due to administrative delay. The party is also pressing for payment. It is once again requested to arrange for supply of claim forms for claiming of the bills.” The excuse offered by respondent Nos.1 and 2 for delayed intimation of the death of the husband of the petitioner is, the failure of the petitioner to submit the death certificate. But, the said fact would not have deterred respondent Nos.1 and 2 from intimating about the death of the petitioner’s husband to respondent No.3 within the time stipulated in the policy i.e. one month from the date of death. Respondent Nos.1 and 2, therefore, cannot escape from their liability to ensure payment of the insured amount to the petitioner on the pretext that she failed to submit the death certificate. It is not the pleaded case of respondent Nos.1 and 2 that they were not aware of the death of the husband of the petitioner within one month. Even according to respondent No.2, the reason for failure to intimate about the death of the petitioner’s husband was administrative delay. Therefore, for their failure, the petitioner cannot be penalized by denying the insured amount. Admittedly, the petitioner’s husband was the holder of insurance policy and the petitioner is entitled to receive the insured sum. Under the above circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are directed to pay the insured sum forthwith to the petitioner with liberty to pursue with respondent No.3 for its reimbursement. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP.No.3940 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 28th APRIL, 2009. kvni