AND Writ Petition No.10310 of 2010

ORDER:

(Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili)

Aggrieved by the order, dated 21.10.2009 passed in F.A.No.1365 of 2007 by the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad, (for short, “ State Commission”), the present Writ Petition is filed.

2. Heard Sri R. Anurag, learned counsel representing the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, appearing for the petitioners.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners had contended that the respondents are claiming insurance amount covered under two Postal Life Insurance (PLI) policies taken by the husband of respondent No.1. Learned counsel had further submitted that the husband of respondent No.1 had taken a policy for Rs.1,00,000/- and another policy for Rs.50,000/- and he had paid premium for these policies. Meanwhile, husband of respondent No.1 has expired on 01.03.2004. After the demise of her husband, respondent No.1 was claiming an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- in total covered under the above two policies. Learned counsel had further contended that the case of the petitioners is that the terms of the policy were never accepted by the husband of respondent No.1 and in the absence of any acceptance of the policy, the question of paying the premium amount to the respondents would not arise. However, the respondents have approached the District Consumer Forum, Khammam by filing C.D.No.59 of 2005 and the District Consumer Forum was pleased to allow the complaint, directing the petitioners to pay an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- in total along with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of the complaint, within one month vide order, dated 23.10.2006.

4. Aggrieved by the order dated 23.10.2006, the petitioners have preferred an appeal before the State Commission and the State Commission was pleased to

dismiss the appeal vide order dated 21.10.2009, without appreciating any of the contentions raised by the petitioners. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the Writ Petition by setting aside the order, dated 23.10.2006 passed in C.D.No.59 of 2005 by the District Consumer Forum and order, dated 21.10.2009 passed in F.A.No.1365 of 2007 by the State Commission.

5. This Court, having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, is of the view that both the District Forum and State Commission were justified in passing the orders in favour of the respondents. Admittedly, the husband of respondent No.1 had taken two Postal Life Insurance Policies. When once the husband of respondent No.1 has expired and the postal authorities have received the entire premium, the question of denying payment of insurance amount to the respondents would not arise. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the orders passed by the State Commission.

6. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

7. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed.

_________________________________

ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J _____________________________ TIRUMALA DEVI EADA, J

Date: 07.04.2025

prat

AND Writ Petition No.10310 of 2010 Date: 07.04.2025 prat