Partly allowed

Rajamma v. the General Manager

Kerala HC24 Jul 2024WP(C)/12197/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking release of an insurance claim for a motor accident death. The court directed the second petitioner to file a claim application with an indemnity bond and KYC documents within three weeks, allowing the insurer two months to decide after an opportunity of being heard.

What did the court decide?

Direction to second petitioner to file application with indemnity bond, KYC and documents within three weeks; insurer to consider and pass orders within two months thereafter after hearing the petitio

Rajamma Vs the General Manager — Kerala HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 24^TH DAY OF JULY 2024 / 2ND SRAVANA, 1946

¶5

WP(C) NO. 12197 OF 2017

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

1 RAJAMMA, AGED 64 YEARS, W/O.RADHAKRISHNAN, LAKSHMI VILASAM, VRINDAVAN NAGAR-1, TOWN BORDER, KOLLAM EAST VILLAGE, KOLLAM TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT

¶8

ADDL.P2 S SHABHITH KRISHNA, S/O LATE SHAJI KUMAR PAYATTUVILA, VETTILATHAZHAM, THRIKKOVILVATTOM VILLAGE, DECENT JUNCTION PO, KOLLAM TALUK

¶9

ADDL. SECOND PETITIONER IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 01.07.2024 IN IA NO. 3/2023 IN WP(C) 12197/2017

¶10

BY ADV M.RAJESH

¶11

RESPONDENT/S:

¶12

1 THE GENERAL MANAGER, CONSUMER AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT, GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL CELL,INSURANCE REGULATORY DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF INDIA 3-5-817/818, UNITED INDIA TOWER, 9TH FLOOR, HYDERGUDA BASHEERBAGH,HYDERABAD-500029

¶13

2 THE MANAGER, INSURANCE REGULATORY DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF INDIA, DELHI OFFICE, GATE NO.3, JEEVAN THARA BUILDING, 1ST FLOOR,SANSAD MARG, NEWDELHI

¶14

3 BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. ANUGRAHA, TC 28/2222, 2ND FLOOR, M.G.ROAD, PAZHAVANGADI, TRIVANDRUM-695023

¶15

BY ADV SRI.THOMAS M.JACOB - R3

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.07.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

WP(C) NO. 12197 OF 2017

¶18

..2..

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

The writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

¶21

“i) Call for the records, relating to Ext.P1 to P7 and issue a writ or appropriate direction to the 1st and 2nd respondent to ensure the release of the claim amount under the policy issued to deceased Shaji Kumar by the 3rd respondent as evidenced by Exhibit P4 without any delay.

¶22

ii) To issue a writ or appropriate direction to the 3rd respondent to complete the proceedings with respect to the claim of the amount covered by the Insurance Policy issued to deceased Shaji Kumar and release the amount.”

¶23

2. The first petitioner is the mother of late Shaji

¶24

Kumar, who died in a motor accident on 23.12.2007. The deceased was having an insurance policy with the third respondent and after his death, his wife, Smt.Shailaja Kumari, who is the nominee in the insurance policy, approached the third respondent for release of the claim amount. On the basis of the instructions issued by the third respondent, she executed Ext.P5 indemnity bond on 29.04.2008, however, Smt.Shailaja Kumari also expired in 2009. Thereafter, the petitioners herein, the mother and the son of late Shaji Kumar, obtained Ext.P7 legal heirship certificate and requested the

¶25

WP(C) NO. 12197 OF 2017

¶26

..3..

¶27

third respondent for release of the claim amount. Aggrieved by the non disbursement of the claim amount, the mother of the deceased has come up before this Court.

¶28

The third respondent filed a counter affidavit, contending that the writ petition is not maintainable since the third respondent is a limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, which will not come within the definition of “State”. It is further contended that the nominee, as per the policy, is the father of late Shaji Kumar and since he has not raised any claim before the third respondent, the claim amount was not disbursed. According to the third respondent, the writ petition is barred by limitation.

¶29

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the third respondent.

¶30

During the pendency of the writ petition, the first petitioner, who is the mother of late Shaji Kumar, expired; and Shabhith Krishna S., the son of late Shaji Kumar, is impleaded as additional second petitioner. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Shabhith Krishna is now aged 21 years and has attained majority, however, the third

¶31

WP(C) NO. 12197 OF 2017

¶32

..4..

¶33

respondent has not released the claim amount so far.

¶34

Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel for the third respondent submits that if an application is filed by the second petitioner along with an indemnity bond, KYC and other relevant documents, they are ready to consider the claim in accordance with law.

¶35

Considering the submissions as above, I am of the

¶36

opinion that the writ petition can be disposed of, as follows:

¶37

a)The second petitioner is directed to file an application with indemnity bond, KYC and other relevant documents before the third respondent within three weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

¶38

b)On receipt of the application as above, the third respondent shall consider and pass appropriate orders on the same in accordance with law, within a further period of two months thereafter.

¶39

c)Before passing any such order, the third respondent shall afford the second petitioner an opportunity of being heard.

¶40

WP(C) NO. 12197 OF 2017

¶41

..5..

¶42

The second petitioner shall produce a certified copy of this judgment along with a copy of the the writ petition before the third respondent for compliance.

Sd/-

SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN

JUDGE

bka/-

WP(C) NO. 12197 OF 2017

¶48

..6..

¶49

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 12197/2017

¶50

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶51

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE POSTMORTEM CERIFICATE OF SHAJI KUMAR DATED 23.12.2007 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE OF SHAJI KUMAR EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE OF SARATH KRISHNA EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 26.8.2008 EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE INDEMNITY BOND EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION KOLLAM EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE LEGAL HEIR CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE TAHASILDAR KOLLAM EXHIBIT P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE IN RESPECT OF THE HUSBAND OF THE PETITIONER NAMED N.RADHAKRISHNAN ISSUED BY KOLLAM CORPORATION

¶52

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS

¶53

EXHIBIT R3-A TRUE COPY OF THE POLICY BEARING NO.OG08-1604-9961-00000009 DATED 16.11.2007 EXHIBIT R3-B TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 28.09.2008 ISSUED BY SHYLAJA KUMARI, WIDOW OF DECEASED SHAJIKUMAR

Rajamma v. the General Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajamma v. the General Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Philomina P.A Vs P.K. Paulose

P.G.Raju Vs the Local Level Monitoring Committee

Dr.Anil Mathew Vs State of Kerala

P.v.Varghese Vs Mohanan

Hindustan Newsprint Ltd. Vs Income Tax Officer(Tds)

Anasuya K Vs Life Insurance Corporation