Insurer has liability to pay insurance amount.

The petitioner is the wife of late K.Velu, who was an Auto Rickshaw driver at Salem Town. He got himself registered under the Tamil Nadu Manual Labour Social Security and Welfare Board [for short, Board] and his Registration No. is 06 Auto 1009. He was running an Auto Rickshaw bearing Registration No.TDL 3731 owned by one K.Abdul Vahab. By virtue of his membership, the petitioner is eligible to avail the benefit of the Tamil Nadu Manual Workers Social Security and Welfare Scheme, 2001 framed under Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Manual Workers (Regulation of Employment and conditions of work) Act, 1982 [for short, Manual Workers Act].

2. Unfortunately, on 25. 2001, the petitioners husband met with an accident while he was driving the auto near Padri Nagar, Salem and sustained grievous injuries. The Inspector of Police, Shevapet Police Station, Salem registered a case in this regard in Crime No.397 of 2001 dated 25. 2001. As he succumbed to injuries, Post Mortem was performed at Government Mohan Kumaramangalam Medical College Hospital, Salem, and Post Mortem Certificate dated 25. 2001 was issued to the petitioner and Death Certificate dated 06. 2001 was also obtained from the Salem Corporation. The petitioner also obtained legal heir Certificate dated 26. 2001 from the Tahsildar, Salem. Thereafter, the petitioner made a representation dated 08. 2001 to the first respondent Board asking them to release the insurance amount. Pursuant to the representation, the first respondent Board, vide letter dated 111. 2002, directed the petitioner to appear before them and furnish relevant documents which the petitioner had furnished on 211. 2002. A claim form was also sent to the first respondent Board in the prescribed format, upon which the Board issued a letter dated 211. 2002 to the Inspector of Labour, Salem and the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Salem directing them to make an enquiry and submit a report regarding the death of the petitioners husband. A final report was also submitted to the Board on 211. 2002. Thereafter, based on the report submitted by the third respondent Deputy Inspector of Labour, Salem and the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Salem, the Board issued a letter to the second respondent Insurance Company in November 2002 asking them to release the insured amount as per the demand. Thereafter, there was no reply from them which forced the petitioner to file the present writ petition seeking for a direction to the second respondent to disburse the insurance amount in accordance with law.

3. The writ petition was admitted on 27.01.2006. I have heard the arguments of Mr.A.Nagarathinam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mrs.C.K.Vishnupriya, learned Government Advocate representing the respondents 1 and 3 and Mr.N.Vijayaraghavan, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent and have perused the records.

4. Mr.Vijayaraghavan, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent stated that even before the notice was issued in the writ petition, they issued a letter to the Board repudiating the claim made on behalf of the petitioner and accordingly, produced a communication sent by the second respondent to the first respondent Board. In that communication, it is stated that the second respondents investigation brought to the notice of the insurer that the cause of death was murder due to personal enmity and, therefore, it does not fall within the scope of cover of the policy.

5. Without driving the parties to a further litigation, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the main writ petition itself is taken up for disposal.

6. The arguments were advanced on the stand taken by the second respondent Insurance Company. Mr.Vijayaraghavan, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company submitted that the murder due to personal enmity is not covered by the policy and, therefore, they are not liable to make any payment. This argument is not available to the second respondent in