The petitioner is widow, her husband,
who worked as Mazdoor in Kothagudem Thermal Power Station, Paloncha in Khammam
District (KTPS). During his
service, he met with accident on 21.1.2000 and later succumbed to injuries. Alleging that Deceased was covered under Group Janata Personal
Accident Policy, the petitioner, as his widow, has made a claim before the
first respondent. In
response thereto, the first respondent has issued the impugned letter stating
that was expired due to the injuries received in a road accident and the
premium towards coverage of the life of the Deceased employee was remitted only after the death of
the employee. While referring
to provisions under Section 64 VB of the Insurance Act, 1939, it is stated that
the risk commences only after receipt of the premium from the insured, the
first respondent refused to admit the liability under the policy. In this writ petition, it is the case
of the petitioner that the second respondent-employer has taken the Policy from
the first respondent covering the period from 26.11.1996 to 30.11.1999 and
again it was renewed for a further period from 01.12.1999 to 30.11.2002. It is stated that as much as the accident
and the resultant death of employee was occurred during the period of the
Policy is in force, the petitioner is entitled for the insured amount of
Rs.1,00,000/- as per the terms of the Policy. It is categorically stated that a
premium amount of Rs.129.60 was deducted by the fourth respondent from the
salary of the Deceased employee in the
month of January, 2000 and the same is evident from the pay statement. Separate counter affidavits are filed
by the respondents. In the
counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 2 to 4, it is stated that the
employee was worked as contract labourer
and though he was absorbed as Mazdoor, he was posted at KTPS, Paloncha and he
worked there till on which date he died. The Policy is being implemented for
the employees of erstwhile APSEB and the same was renewed from time to
time. During the
subsistence of the Policy period from 01.12.1999 to 30.12.2002, the
subscription was fixed at Rs.129.60 per employee. It is further stated that the Deceased
employee joined the service while the
Policy was in force and the premium was deducted from his salary from the month
of January, 2000 and the risk amount covered was Rs.1,00,000/-. The salary bills for the month of
January, 2000 were prepared and passed in the last week of January, 2000. The
premium amounts deducted from the respective salaries of mazdoors wee remitted
to the first respondent and there are no laches on their part. A
separate counter affidavit is filed by the first respondent stating as
follows. The petitioner
herein has made claim as the widow of Deceased . Originally the Policy was issued
covering the period from 26.11.1996 to 30.11.1999, wherein the name of Deceased
was not included. They have also issued policy covering
for a period of 13.3.1997 to 12.3.2000 and therein also the name of Deceased was not
included. The premium
amount was remitted on 21.1.2000 to respondents. In the said renewal policy, for the
first time, the name of Deceased was
included in the list of employees. Even according to the claim of the
petitioner, the petitioner joined KTPS only in the year 1998 pursuant to his
absorption as Mazdoor. In
the first policy which was obtained under Group Janata Personal Accident Policy
in 1996 does not contain the name of Deceased covering the risk. A copy of further policy is produced
before this Court, in which the name of Deceased is included. It is valid from 13.3.2000 to
12.3.2003. From the counter
affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents 2 to 4, it is evident that though
the name of Deceased was not figured in the first policy, premium amount was
deducted from his salary for the month of January, 2000. The deducted premium was also remitted
to the first respondent-Insurance company only on 17.2.2000 whereas Deceased
died on 04.2.2000 due to the injuries received in the accident that occurred on
21.1.2000. Although it is
the case of the respondents 2 to 4, the Policy covers the risk of Deceased,
Mazdoor, the policy on record shows that it covers from 13.3.2000 to 12.3.2003
and it also includes the name of Deceased. When the premium was deducted from his
salary for the month of January, 2000 itself, it is not known why the policy
was obtained belatedly covering the risk of the life of Deceased from 13.3.2000
to 12.3.2003. At the same
time, the first respondent-Insurance company has received premium for Deceased
and other employees on 17.2.2000. As
it is the case of the first respondent that as on the date of death of Deceased,
neither the policy was issued nor amount of premium was received by them to
cover the life of Deceased, they are not liable to admit claim made by the
petitioner. Further,
the counter affidavit filed by the respondents 2 to 4, it is alleged that the
policy is covered and there is correspondence to show that further policy,
which commenced from 13.3.2000, was in continuation of original policy that
expired on 30.11.1999. The
learned counsel appearing for the first respondent has produced a copy of the
policy itself by including the name of late Deceased covering the period from
13.3.2000 to 12.3.2003 and the premium amount was received by the first
respondent only on 17.2.2000 i.e., after the death of the Deceased employee. This Court finds that there is no
valid reason or justification on the part of the respondents 2 to 4 in
deducting the premium from the salary of January, 2000 and not obtaining the
policy in continuation of earlier policy including the name of Deceased. It appears there is lapse on the part
of the respondents 2 to 4 in not obtaining the policy immediately in
continuation of expiry of the earlier policy by including the name of the
petitioner. At the same
time, there is no reason for deducting premium amount from the salary of Deceased
from the month of January, 2000. In
that view of the matter, for the lapse on the part of respondents 2 to 4, the
petitioner should not be deprived of the claim of Rs.1,00,000/- in spite of the
fact that the premium amount towards the Policy was deducted by the respondents
2 to 4 from the salary of the Deceased employee from January, 2000 itself. For the aforesaid reasons, I deem it
appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the respondents 2 to 4 to
pay the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the petitioner towards the claim made by her
under Group Janata Personal Accident Policy. The amount shall be paid to the
petitioner within a period of three months from today by account payee cheque
by opening an account in her name in a Nationalised Bank. At the same time, liberty is given to
the respondents 2 to 4 to recover such amount if they are entitled to recover
from the first respondent by instituting independent proceedings. The writ
petition is allowed, with directions as indicated above. No order as to costs. The above case
is argued by me and obtained orders in favor of the petitioner
Wednesday, September 26, 2012
Tuesday, May 1, 2012
NOT TO INSIST NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE
The petitioners claim to be the owners
of plot. in Survey No. admeasuring 107 square yards under Guntur
Municipality , Guntur
District. They intended to
sell the property and claim to have approached the first respondent with a
request to receive the document for registration. The grievance of the petitioners is
that the first respondent is refusing to receive the document for registration,
by treating the subject matter of the document as Wakf property. They seek appropriate
directions in this regard. Heard the learned
counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue. The Registering authority does not have the power to refuse to
receive a document. He can
certainly refuse registration, in case there exist valid grounds for it. Refusal to receive the document would
amount to abdication of duties. This
Court does not intend to express any view on the merits of the matter. Suffice it to say that the first
respondent shall entertain the document and process the same in accordance with
law.
Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of,
directing that-
(a) the first respondent shall
receive the document as and when presented by the petitioners;
(b) in case, the document can
be registered, the first respondent shall process the same and complete the
steps within four (4) weeks from the date of receiving the document; and
(c) if on the other hand, there
exist any grounds that enable the first respondent to refuse registration, he
shall communicate the same to the petitioners in writing within two (2) weeks
from the date of receiving the document. There shall be no order as to costs. The
miscellaneous petition filed in this writ petition also stands disposed of. The above case was argued by me on behalf of the petitioner and obtained favourable orders.
Sunday, April 29, 2012
ALLOWED QUASH PROCEEDING.
This
Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking to stay of all
further proceedings including the order, passed in Crl.R.P.No. on the file of
the Hon’ble Sessions Judge, Anantapur District, where under and whereby the
Revision Petition filed against the order, in DVC on the file of the Additional Judicial
Magistrate of First Class, Anantapur, which was dismissed for default, was
confirmed. 2. Heard. 3. The brief
facts are that the petitioner filed Crl. Revision Petition against the order,
in DVC No. The petitioner filed affidavit in lieu of chief
examination and since then, the matter was coming up for cross-examination by
the respondents. The case was posted on for cross-examination of the petitioner. But,
the petitioner has not attended the Court on that date due to
dharna. The trail Court dismissed the DVC for default, as
there was no representation by the petitioner and inspite of conditional
orders. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed the revision
petition and the same was also dismissed. Hence, the present
Criminal Petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the petitioner could not attend the Court for cross-examination
due to Dharna, as there was no transport facility on. On the other hand, learned
counsel for the respondents 2 to 4 contended that since a long time, the
petitioner was not coming to the Court for the purpose of cross-examination,
therefore, the trial Court has rightly dismissed DVC and the same was confirmed
in revision petition and the orders need no interference by this Court. To
secure the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process of Court or to carry
out the order passed under this Code, powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be
invoked or exercised. As seen from the order of the trial Court, only
on one occasion i.e. on the petitioner
was absent, therefore, the petition was dismissed for default. As a
matter of fact, the respondents were also absent on that day. Proper
explanation was given by the petitioner stating that due to dharna, there was
no transport facility for the petitioner to attend the Court. Therefore,
absence of the petitioner is not shown to be wanton or wilful. Therefore,
in view of the fact that the petition is filed under Section 12 of the Domestic
Violence Act, 2005 for various reliefs, the trial Court ought to have given one
more opportunity to the petitioner to attend the Court. Considering
these facts, the impugned order can be set aside and DVC can be restored to
file. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the impugned
order is set aside. However, it is made clear that the petitioner
shall attend the Court on the date so fixed by the trial Court for the purpose
of cross-examination. Since the DVC is of the year 2009, the trial
Court shall dispose of the same within a period of four (4) months from the
date of receipt of a copy of this order, after giving reasonable opportunity to
both the parties. Hence allowed quashed proceedings. The above case is argued by me on behalf of petitioner/complainant
and got favorable orders.
Saturday, April 28, 2012
DISMISSED QUASH PROCEEDINGS FILED BY THE ACCUSED
The petitioners/accused have
filed a quash proceedings u/s.482 of
Cr.P.c on the ground that the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant
with malafide intention and violation of Bhajan Lal’s. Further the Court below without following the
procedure the complaint was referred to
the Police to investigate the matter and
many criminal cases pending in the Chittisgarh
State . Therefore C.C. may be quashed.
The respondent/ complainant denied
the contentions raised in the quash proceedings and stated true and correct facts of the
case, submitting that she has made allegations against the accused that they
came to the residence of the complainant and insisted to sign on blank papers and further insisted to withdraw the
O.P. which was pending before the Family Court CCC Hyderabad. The same was
refused by the respondent/complainant. Then all accused mercilessly beaten to
the respondent and ran away from that place. Hence
she filed a complaint before the court below requesting to refer to the
police. The Court below after enquiry
and taken on the file under sec.323 and 506 of IPC. (Indian Penal Code).
Further she contended that two cases were filed in the State of Chittisgarh . Out two, one MC (Maintenance case) was become
infractuous and another was got transferred to Hyderabad Andhra Pradesh. Further she contended that
the offence took place at Sanjeev Reddy Nagar at Hyderabad and the said area will come with in the
jurisdiction of Nampally Criminal Court
at Hyderabad . Therefore
the complaint is well with in the jurisdiction of this State. The Hon’ble High Court after hearing the both
the counsels and dismissed the quashed proceedings on the ground that the
prima-facie, the offence under section
323 and 506 is established and requires trail in the matter. Therefore there is no ground is made out to
quash the C.C. Hence dismissed quashed proceedings. The above case is argued by me on behalf of
respondent/complainant and got favourable orders.
DIRECTED NOT TO DEDUCT LOAN AMOUNT FROM THE SALARY OF THE APPLICANT
The
applicant is a Operator Grade-II in the irrigation department Government of
Andhra Pradesh. He obtained personal loan of Rs. 1,20,000/- with interest
@12% of the loan amount to meet his family needs. he was also paid nine (9) installments
continuously to the State Bank of Hyderabad .
The rest of 27 installments were not paid due financial Constrains. In fact, the Manager, State Bank of Hyderabad , Gruhakalpa, Hyderabad was informed to the applicant that
they EMI amount will be recover through the applicant’s salary account. But they did not do so. The Bank never acted diligent to recover of
remaining amount from the applicant.
After laps of 5 ½ years, all of
sudden the bank without issuing the notice to the applicant and communicated letter to the respondent. No. 4 stating that to make recovery/deduct an
amount of Rs. 12,000/- per month from the salary account of the applicant. the
total rest of loan amount is 1,94,173/- is due to bank, so that they can close
his personal loan account at the earliest in which the applicant is disputing
the same and the bank is not entitled to recover the such amount as it is a
excess claim. Therefore the bank has failed
to take steps to recover the installments as and when the applicant as became a
defaulter. He submits that he became a defaulter for payment
of personal loan amount of Rs.4000/- from October, 2007. The cause of action arose from October,
2007. From that date, the bank has to
file a suit for recovery of loan amount within three years i.e. October 2010
from the date of default. But the bank
failed to do so. For taking into
consideration of cause of action that the last installment is the criteria to file a suit. Thus the recovery of claim amount is barred
by limitation. Therefore, it is outdated
debt and the bank is not entitled recovery the outdated debt as per the
limitation act. The applicant further submits that the Respondents 4 to 6 are not
entitled to recover the loan amount as per letter dated 05.11.2011 as debt is
out dated debut. The bank is not
entitled to gain wrongfully. The
applicant further submits that if the Respondents 4 to 6 made any deductions
from the salary of the applicant as per the letter dated 05.11.2011 that will
give a fresh cause of action to the
bank. And also it will cause a
irreparable loss to the applicant. The respondents 4 to 6 are showing over
anxiety to implement and tried recover an amount of Rs. 12,000/- from the
applicant’s salary account as per letter issued by the SBH Bank vide letter
dated 05-11-2011. Assuming that he was a
defaulter, for recover of the personal
loan amount is concerned, the bank ought to have file a civil suit before competent civil court
and obtain decree from the said court and based on that a E.P. has to
file for realization of the
decreetal amount against the applicant.
In this case nothing was done. Based on
the letter dt. 5-11-2011 the respondents 4 to 6 deducted an amount of Rs. 12,000/- from the
salary account of the applicant and the same was kept aside. The applicant was also not received salary
for the month of November 2011 as because they deducted an amount of Rs.
12,000/-from the salary of the applicant in arbitrary manner as a result the
applicant is facing financial problem.
The applicant further submit that the respondents 4 to 6 are colluded
with the bank and started
deductions from the salary of the applicant from NOVEMBER 2011. The respondents 4 to 6 are
acting as recovery agents and making deductions from the salary not only the
applicant’s salary but also from other employee’s salary accounts. The applicant further submit that, the
respondents 3 to 6 are not entitled to touch the salary of the applicant as
there is no order of the court to
attach/deduct salary of the applicant. In the present case, there is no such
decree for recovery of dues amount due to the bank from the salary of the
applicant. But the respondents 4 to 6
were recovered/deducted an amount of Rs.
12,000/- from the salary of the applicant and the same was kept aside. In these circumstances, the applicant has
requested the respondents no. 4 to 6 orally not to recover an amount of rs. 12,000/- orally and issued a legal Notice dated 10-12-2011
to the respondents 4 to 6 stating that not to make any recovery/deductions from
his salary. Even then the respondents 3 to 6 are not ready to pay his salary
without making deduction of
Rs. 12,000/- from his salary. Therefore, the action of the respondents by
making deductions of Rs. 12,000/- for the month of November 2011 from the
salary of the applicant without issuing notice is violative of principle of natural justice,
illegal, arbitrary and violating of the article 21 of the Constitution of the
India. Therefore, Prima-facie, balance of
convenience in favour of applicant If any
deductions made from the salary of the applicant as letter dated 05-11-2011
issued by the State Bank of Hyderabad, he will be put to
irreparable loss and caused prejudice and hardship. Now the respondents contended that
they are not aware of sanctioned loan to
the applicant and none of the parties are informed to the respondents. The respondents filed a counter contended that they
have not yet started recovery of the
laon amount from the salary of
the applicant and the applicant himself failed to take his salary and hence ,
it was remitted back to the treasury. The
Court is of opinion that the bank should approach the civil court and obtain a
decree against the applicant for the balance amount due and till such time the
respondents should not recovery the amount from his salary and remit tit ti the
bank since it si disputed claim only the Civil Court is competent to adjudicate
upon it. However, the respondents have
categorically stated that, they have not yet effected recovery from the salary
of the applicant as requested by the bank and as such there is no need to give
any direction. For the reasons stated
under point no.1 the OA disposed of with a direction to the respondent 3 to 6 not
to recover the loan amount of Rs.1,94,173/- from the salary of the applicant by
deducting Rs.12,000/- per month, as requested bys the bank as the claim is disputed
by the applicant, they are further directed to draw the unclaimed salary of the
applicant and pay it to him within period of six weeks from the date of receipt
of copy of this order. The MA stands closed. The above case was argued by me and obtained orders in favour of the applicant.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)