G. Laxminarasamma (Smt.) vs Director, A.P. Engg. Research Labs Himayathsagar, Hyderabad and another

The petitioner''s husband, viz., Late Sri G.Sanjeeva Rao, was serving in the establishment of the 1st respondent as Lab Attendant, he the course of employment he met with an accident on 4-10-1994 and, ultimately, he died on 24-10-1994. In pursuance of the Group Janata Personal Accident Policy introduced in the establishment of the 1st respondent, necessary premium was recovered from the salary of the deceased employee on 9-10-1994 and the said premium was sent to the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company by way of demand draft on 10-10-1994. The receipt of the demand draft on 10-10-1994 itself by the 2nd respondent is an undisputed fact. After the death of the employee, the petitioner-widow submitted a claim application for payment of assured sum of money. The petitioner''s request was turned down by the Divisional Manager by letter dated 26-7-1996, which reads as follows:

"To

The Director, A.P.Engg.Research Labs, Himayatsagar, Hyderabad-500030.

Dear Sir,

Ref: Accident to Mr. G. Sanjeeva Rao under Group Janata Personal Accident Policy.

With reference to the above, we refer your letter ref.No....... dated ........ informing us about the accident/death of the above named person. In this connection, we express our inability in considering the claim as the accident/death took place, before payment of premium. The same falls under exclusions of the policy. We regret for the inconvenience caused to you in this matter".

Hence this writ petition seeking a Writ in the nature of mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in not releasing the assured amount in favour of the petitioner as per the Group Janata Personal Accident Policy of the Andhra Pradesh Government as illegal and contrary to law and for a consequential direction to the 2nd respondent to release the assured amount to the petitioner.

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

G.O.Ms.No.210, Finance and Planning (FW.ADMN.II) Department, dated 26-8-1995 makes it very clear that in case where any accident or death takes place between the period of recovery and actual remittance to the Insurance Company, the designated Insurance Company shall pay, exgratia amount equal to the sum assured on the basis of the recovery made in the pay bills of employee by the concerned Drawing and Disbursing Officer. In the present case, in fact recovery was made before the death of the employee on 9-10-1994 itself. The recovered premium from the salary of the deceased-employee was also remitted to the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company by way of a demand draft on 10-10-1994. Therefore, both the recovery of premium and payment of premium to the 2nd respondent took place well before the date of death of the employee. The letter of the Divisional Manager of the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company dated 26-7-1996 demonstrates that there was total lack of application of mind on the part of the Divisional Manager. The claim of the petitioner is turned down on the ground that the accident/death took place before payment of the premium. Nothing is produced before the Court by the Management of the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company to show that the Group Janata Personal Accident Policy would cover only accidents and not deaths. The G.O., referred to above makes it very clear that the assured sum has to be paid both in the case of accident and in the case of death. Since there is no controversy between the parties on facts relating to recover;'' of premium from the salary of the deceased-employee and remittance of the same to the credit of the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company, a case is made out for interference.

In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed. A direction shall issue to the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company to pay the assured amount to the petitioner as per the Group Janata Personal Accident Policy within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.