IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 6367 of 2008 Between: 1. Smt.Nazuma Begum W/o. Late Md. Mahamood Ali R/o.Thimmapoor Village of Hanmkonda Mandal of Warangal District. 2 Ammena Sharifa D/o. Late Md. Mahamood Ali Minor Rep/by her natural Mother Nazuma Begum, R/o.Thimmapoor Village . of Hanmkonda Mandal ofWarangal District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Life Insurance Corporation of India, rep. by its Branch Manager (Branch-I), R/o.H.No.2-7-104, Near Ambedkar Stadium, Karimnagar. 2 The Life Insurance Corporation of India, rep. by its Divisional Manager, Karimnagar. 3 Smt.Saleema Bee W/o.Md. Mohsin Ali R/o.H.No.7-2-359, Mankammathota locality, Karimnagar. .....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 a writ, in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order declaring the action of the respondents 1 & 2 in taking steps to pay Insurance Policy amount of the Policy bearing No's. 682727546 and 682728586 of Rs.75,000/- and Rs.50,000/- respectively to the third respondent without considering the claim of the petitioners as illegal and void and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.SATYAM REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.V.VENKATARAMI REDDY The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 6367 OF 2008 ORDER: 1. This writ petition has been ﬁled by the petitioners who are two in number with a prayer to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the Life Insurance Corporation of India, Karimnagar-1st respondent and the Life Insurance Corporation of India, Divisional Manager, Karimnagar-2nd respondent in taking steps to pay Insurance Policy amount to Smt. Saleema Bee-3rd Respondent as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The 1st petitioner claims to be the wife and 2nd petitioner claims to be the daughter of Mohd. Mahamood Ali. 3rd respondent is mother of Mohd. Mahamood Ali, who died on 14-3-2008. He took insurance policies during his life time. He nominated his mother Smt. Saleema Bee for insurance policies taken by him. Petitioners ﬁled writ petition claiming that they are the legal representative of the Mohd. Mahmood Ali and therefore, action of the respondents 1 and 2 in taking steps to settle amount payable consequent to the death of Mohd. Mahamood Ali in favour of the 3rd respondent are illegal and arbitrary. 3. Notice before admission came to be ordered on 25-3- 2008. Respondent No.1 entered appearance and ﬁled counter. It is stated in the counter-aﬃdavit that the policy amounts have been paid to 3rd respondent. Para 3 of the counter affidavit need to be noted and it is thus.: “In reply to para 2 of the aﬃdavit ﬁled by the petitioner herein, I submit that it is true that the deceased husband of the petitioner has obtained two life insurance policies bearing No. 682727546 and 62728586 for Rs. 75,000/- and R. 50,000/- respectively in the year 2001 and 2002 and mentioned his mother by name Smt. Saleema Bee who is the 3rd respondent herein as the nominee. After death of the policyholder on 14-3-200, the mother who is the nominee in the policy submitted a letter on 17-03-20088 informing of the death of her son and requested for settlement of the claim under the above aid two policies. Consequently the claim under the two policies was settled on 24-3-2008.” 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents. 5. It is stated in the counter aﬃdavit ﬁled by the 1st respondent that the amounts covered under the policies have been paid to the 3rd respondent on 24-3-2008 and nothing survives in the writ petition for adjudication. 6. In that view of the matter this writ petition is dismissed reserving the liberty to the petitioners to work out the remedy in civil Court to claim their respective share in the amounts received by the 3rd respondent. No order as to costs. ______________________________ Justice B. Seshasayana Reddy 5th September, 200. KM THE HONOURABLE SRI JUTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 6367 OF 2008 5th September, 2008.