The oriental lnsurance Company Limited' rep v. G Parimala. W/o. Late G. Nagendra Advocate R/o DNo 18-8-82A-11'

...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith' the High Court may be pleased to issue a wrrt, order or direction' preferably' one in the nature of writ of Certiorari calling for the records in F A No 417 of 2006 on the file of the A.P.State Consumber Disputes Redressal Commission' Hyderabad leading upto and including the order dated 24 '09 -2009 ' reversing the well considered order dated 8.2.2006 passed in C D No 64 of 2005 by the District Consumer Forum-ll' Tirupathi and consequently be pleased to quash the order dated 24 09 2009 pased in F.A.No.417 of 2006 as arbitrary' illegal and against terms of contract of lnsurance thus resulting in mis-charge of justice l.A. NO: 1 OF 201O(WPMP. NO : 6122 OF 2O101 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings including execution in EPNo.2 of 2010 in CCNo.64 of 2005 praying for execution of the order daled 24.09.2009 passed in F.A.No.417 of 2006 by A.P.State Consumber Disputes Redressal Commission allowing C.D.No.64 of 2005 on the file of District Consumer Forum-ll, Tirupathi Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. S. AGASTYA SHARMA, SC Counsel for the Respondent: Ms. G. JHANSI The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI IUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HON'BLE SMT.IUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA WRIT PETITION No.4755 OF 2010 OI(DER: (11,r I lon'blc Sri lusticc Abhinand Kurnar Shavrli) This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of Inclia, is filecl seeking the following relief: "... to issue a r,vrit, order or dircction, preferably, one in the na turc of writ of certiorari calling for the records in Ir A No.4l7 of 2006 on the file of AP State Consumcr' Disputes Redressal Commission, I Iyderabad leacling up to and including thc ordc'r dated 24-09-2009, reversing the well considered order dated 08-02-2006 passed in C.D. No. 64 of 2005 by thc District Consumer Forum-ll, Tirupathi and consequently be pleased to quash the order dated 24-09-2009 passeci in F.A.No.417 ol 2006 as arbitrarl,, illegal and against terms of contract of lnsurance; thus resulting in mis-carriage oI justicc and pass such other order or further orders ..."

2. Heard Sri S. Agasthya Sharma, learned Standing Coutrsel for the petitioner-Insurauce Company and Smt. G. Jhansi, learned counsel for the respondent

3. It is the case of the petitioner that the husband of respondent has taken a long term Janatha Accident Personal Insurance Policy with the petitioner on 26.06.1997. While so, the husband of the -rgspondent died inq road accident, which occurred on 19.02.2005. \\ 2 -rri::.; ,'.,,:,,-. ' 1 ,) AKS,.l& Fit t),J tV.P.No.4755 of 2010 The responclent, as a nominee under the said ;,olicv, has preferred a claim aftcr the death of her husband. The l etihoner z)idc letter, dated 04.05.2005, i.formed the respondent tr-rat thc said rong term Policy was cancclled n,ith effect from 16.0-t.2002 as a policl, decision anci repucliated the claim of the respondent. Aggrieved bv the same, tlrc respo,c'rent filed C.C.No.64 of 2001i before the Dish.ict Consumer Disputcs Redressal Forum_II, Tirupathi (for short, ,the Dishict Foru rn') ancl the same \ 7as dismissed aidc order, clated

08.02.2006. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent file<J F.A.No.417 of 2006 before the A.p. State C,rnsumer Disputes Redressal (lomnrission, Hyderabacl (for sitort, ,the State Commissiorr'). Vide in-rpuened order, dated 24.09.2009, the appeal was allowed by setting aside the order, dated 0g.02.2}O6,passed by the District Forum and the pctitioner was di;.ected to pay the assured sun-r rvith interest at the rate of g% per annum from the date of repudiation tirr the date of realization tog,:ther with costs of Rs.3,000/-, to the respondent. Challenging the same, the present Writ Petition is filed ,/ 3 AKS,J& ETD,J W.P.No.475i of 2010

4. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that the respondent's husband has taken a long term Insurance Policy with the petitioner on26.06.1997 and only a sirrgle prelrium n,as paid, that too, at the time of takirrg the polic1,. The petiticrner has cancelled the said policy with effect from '16.04.2002 ancl the respor.rdent's husband had expired on 19.02.2005. Learned Stanclir.rg Counsel f urther submitted tl'rat when the policy itsclf was discontinued with effect from 16.04.2002, the question of paying the sum assured under the said policl, would not arise. This fact was not properly appreciated by the State Commission and the State Commission has allowed the subject F.A. preferred by the respor-rdent and directed the petitioner to pay the sum assured Therefore, appropriatc orders be passed in the Writ Petition

5. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioner had further submitted that pursuant to the order, dated 04.03.2010, passed by this Court in W.P.MP.No.6122 of 201.0, the petitioner has deposited 50% of the amount awarded by the State Commission and the respondent has withdrawn the same. Learned Stancling i i I N 4 AKS,J& E TD,J l{.lJ.No 4755 of 2010 Counsel further submitted that the petitioner \.,/ill not recover the amount/ wl.rich was already paid to the respondent.

6. Learncd counsel for the r.espondent had :;ubmitted that the Writ Petition may be closed with an observation that the amount, which was alreacly paid to the rcspo.dent, shal I not be recovered from the respondent.

7. This Court, having consiclered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, is of the considered view that the State Commission u,as not.justified in directing the petitioner to pay the amount to the responclcnt, pursuant to the policy, I,r,hich was discontirrued by the petitioner with effect frorn "16.04.2002. Therefore, the order, dated24.09.2009, passecl in I,.A.No.417 of 2006 by the State Commission is liablc to be set asicle rr.rtl accordingly, the same is sct asidc_ Hon,ever, i t is made clea r that since the petitioner has already paid 50% of the amount ,rwarded by the State Commission to the respondent, in terms of tlLe interim order, dated 04.03.2010, passed by this Court in w.p.Mp.rrro.6 ^r22 of 2010, ) AKS,l& ETD,I W.P.No.{755 of 2010 the petitioner is not entitled to recover the said amount from the respondent

8. With the above obsen,ations/directions, the Writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs Miscellaneous Applications, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed D/.P. S A PONNA KRISHNA TANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// EGTION OFFICER To, 1 2 3 4 BM BS i'ffi 51u*+[*ffi ;,'J'Hfl':lffi r'* Two CD CoPies HIGH COURT i DATED:01 10512025 ORDER WP.No.4755 of 2010 ,: a 7 /.6. (\( 7- jt) ) t 1 2 5 ,luir 2p5 a b Sn^r.'' 2 /. /5 3 I DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS