SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2000 Supreme(Mad) 495

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
V.Kanagaraj, J.
P.Nagappan
Versus
The District Collector, South Arcot District, Cuddalore and another
W.P.No.13408 of 1993 and W.M.P.No.20611 of 1993
Decided On : 27 April 2000

Advocates:
P.Kathirvel, for Petitioner.
A.Arumugam, Government Advocate, for Respondents.

Bar not created by law but by a Government order.

Headnote:Insurance Law - Denial of amount under Insurance-cum-retirement- Claim for amount under Insurance-cum-retirement- benefit scheme by nominee of deceased subscriber rejected on ground that claim was more than one month after death of deceased - Such bar not created by law but by a Government order - Deceased had allegedly given a false age as against the age mentioned in the family card and electoral rolls -Entries in those records not evidence of age - Opportunity not given to deceased to rebut those entries - Claim allowed.

ORDER: The petitioner has prayed for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the second respondent in his File No.Mu.Mu.A7.3469/90 dated 13.9.1991 and in Na. Ka. A7/8055/92 dated 19.10.1992, and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents to disburse the amount of Rs.5,000 under the Insurance-cum-retirement Benefit Special Scheme to the petitioner, who is the nominee of his late mother Smt. Anjalai Ammal.

2. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner would submit that his mother Anjalai joined the Insurance-Retirement Benefit Special Scheme with the respondents on 31.3.1987; that she was paying the monthly subscription fee of Rs.10 to the Village Administrative Officer (VAO), Gunavasal as per the directions of the second respondent regularly till 4.4.1989 and his mother died on 24.4.1989; that his mother Anjalai nominated him to receive the insurance benefit in the event of her death; that accordingly, he is entitled to receive the benefits amounting to Rs.5,000.

3. The petitioner would further submit that immediately after his mother’s death, he approached the second respondent on 18.7.1989 and demanded the payment of insurance amount payable to his deceased mother in pursuance of the Insurance-Retirement Benefit Special Scheme taken by her with the respondents. But the respondents neither paid the insured amount to him nor sent any reply till 12.9.1991. But, however, on 13.9.1991, he received a letter from the second respondent stating that his mother paid the monthly subscription for April and May, 1988 on 3.8.1988 after a lapse of six months and hence she ceased to be a member of the above said insurance scheme.

4. The petitioner would further submit that during June and July 1988, the VAOs did not attend to their office on account of strike as a result of which, his mother was not able to pay the amount to the VAO, who is the competent authority to receive the monthly instalments and the same was explained not only to the respondents but also to the higher-ups and in spite of several representations to the respondents, ultimately through the Legal Aid Taluk Committee, Chidambaram, he approached the second respondent to pay the insurance amount on a specific representation and only then the second respondent, Tahsildar, sent a reply dated 19.10.1992 in his Roc.No.A7/8055/92 stating that the petitioner was not entitled to receive the Insurance-Retirement Benefit Special Scheme on ground (i) that his mother gave her age wrongly as 55; (ii) that the nominee has to claim the insurance benefits within one month from the date of the death of the insured, but in the instant case, the claim was made after three months; and (iii) that the amount of Rs.30 collected from the insurance by the VAO has been deposited in the Treasury on 28.4.1989 that is after four days from the date of death of the insured. On such false and flimsy grounds, the respondents decided not to disburse the amount without even giving an opportunity for the petitioner to be heard and hence would ultimately pray for the relief extracted supra.

5. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, the respondents, besides generally denying the allegations contained in the writ petition would also specifically allege that the deceased Anjalai, wife of Pakkiri was enrolled in the Insurance-Retirement Benefit Special Scheme, on 31.3.1987 and that her number was 2186/87; that at the time of enrollment, her age was 48 in her application; that she died on 24.4.1989; that she paid Rs.260 in the scheme from 31.3.1987 to 4.4.1989; that the petitioner is the only son of the insured who was the nominee and he applied for the insured amount of Rs.5,000; that the proposals resubmitted to the Collector dated 5.8.1991 along with the reply to the clarifications raised by the Collector had been sent and the same had been finally rejected on 26.8.1991 thus returning the claim for payment of R

















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top