DIRECTED THE RESPONDENTS TO PAY GROUP JANATA PERSONAL ACCIDENT POLICY AMOUNT TO THE PETITIONER

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