THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.8486 of 2010 Date:08.02.2011 Between: Smt. K. Indira ..... Petitioner AND APSRTC, Hyderabad and others .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: None appeared Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 2: Sri P.Krishna Reddy for Sri P.Sridhar Reddy, standing counsel for APSRTC Counsel for Respondent Nos.3 and 4: -- The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside the proceedings dated 10.08.2009 of respondent No.3. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 are served and on their behalf though the name of Sri G. Dinesh Kumar is shown in the cause list, he has not appeared at the hearing. I have heard the learned standing counsel for A.P.S.R.T.C. The husband of the petitioner (for short ‘the deceased employee’) died in a fire accident, on 20.01.2009. At the time of his death, he was working as a driver in the respondent No.1 Corporation. The deceased employee joined his service in the Corporation on 01.07.1991 and was a member of respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 has taken a Janata Personal Accident Insurance Policy in favour of all its members including the deceased employee. The policy coverage is to a maximum extent of Rs.1,00,000/- covering accidents including death due to burns. When the petitioner approached respondent No.3 to forward her claim for payment of insurance amount to respondent No.4, the same was rejected by respondent No.3 with the endorsement that the same was time barred and that the policy does not apply to the deceased employee. In response to the notice, a counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2. It is inter alia stated therein that the deceased employee is covered by the Janata Personal Accident Policy as he has paid one time premium towards the said policy. It is further stated that the death of the petitioner’s husband was notified by respondent No.1 Corporation on 17.02.2009 under intimation to respondent No.3 and that respondent No.3 was requested to arrange to send CCS claim forms for settlement of the amounts to be paid in respect of the deceased employee, through letter dated 16.03.2009. That respondent No.1 has forwarded copies of F.I.R., death certificate, post mortem report of the deceased employee to respondent No.3. It is further stated that respondent No.3 failed to forward the documents to respondent No.4 and that it is only respondent No.4 which is entitled to consider the petitioner’s claim and not respondent No.3. It is also stated that respondent No.1 has forwarded all the documents to respondent No.4 on 21.01.2011 marking a copy to respondent No.3, with a request to it to process the petitioner’s application while enclosing all the documents. From the pleadings of the respective parties, this Court is convinced that it is only respondent No.4 which has to examine the claim for payment of insurance amount and respondent No.3 ought not to have returned the documents on any ground including that the claim is time barred. Since respondent No.1 is stated to have forwarded the documents to respondent No.4 with a request to respondent No.3 to process the petitioner’s application, respondent No.3 is directed to process and send the same to respondent No.4 within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Respondent No.4 shall consider the claim for payment and communicate the decision thereon to the petitioner and respondent Nos.1 and 2 within a period of one month of receipt of the application by it. Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.10923 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 08th February, 2011 GHN