IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF MAY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA WRIT PETITION No.3542/2015 AND WRIT PETITION Nos.4140-4142/2015(GM-RES) BETWEEN:
SHRI K. SHANTHACHANNEGOWDA, S/O LATE KARIGOWDA AGED 66 YEARS, R/O NO.18.4TH CROSS, HARIRAM AILDAS LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-40.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI SUMANGALA A. SWAMY, ADVOCATE) AND:
THE BRANCH MANAGER L I C OF INDIA, CHANDRA SADAN COMPLEX, KASTURBA ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001.
(BY SRI B. V. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE) …… ... RESPONDENT THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO SETTLE THE CLAIM OF THE PETITIONER IN RESPECT OF THE POLICY Nos.G-39189273,G-48620506,G-610311334 & G-39187078. THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioner, retired Deputy Conservator of Forest, filed the present writ petitions seeking direction to the respondent to settle his claim in respect of the policy Nos.G-39189273, G-48620506, G-610311334 and G-39187078, with interest at 12% from the date of maturity till the date of payment.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that while he was working as Deputy Conservator of Forest he had taken certain LIC policies bearing Nos. G-39189273, G- 48620506, G-610311334 and G-39187078 under salary attachment scheme. Some of them were matured in the year 2001 and 2004. Petitioner got retired in the year 2006 on attaining the age of superannuation. After retirement, he gave representation on 19.12.2008 to the respondent requesting for settlement of his claim in respect of the aforesaid policies. Inspite of the same, till today, respondent has neither considered the representation nor passed any orders. Therefore, petitioner is before this Court for the relief sought for.
3. The respondent has not filed any objections.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis.
5. Smt.Sumangala A. Swamy, learned counsel for the petitioner, reiterating the grounds urged in the petition, contended that the inaction on the part of the respondent to settle the petitioner’s claim in respect of insurance policies is illegal and arbitrary. She contended that the petitioner has invested his hard earned money and life time savings in getting the policies and therefore, it is the duty of the respondent to consider the petitioner’s representation and release the maturity amount under the policies. Therefore, she sought to allow the writ petitions.
6. Per contra, Sri B.V.Krishna, learned counsel for the respondent fairly submits that the petitioner’s representation/ letter dated 19.12.2008 will be considered and disposed of, if not already considered, if two month’s time is granted, subject to fulfillment of certain conditions for release of the policy amount which will be communicated to the petitioner in advance. The submission is placed on record.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is the specific case of the petitioner that while he was working as Deputy Conservator of Forest, he had taken certain LIC Policies under the salary attachment scheme, morefully mentioned in para 3 of the memorandum of writ petitions and Annexures-C and D. The said policies were matured in the year 2001 and 2004. Petitioner retired in the year 2006 and inspite of his representation as per Annexure-D, the respondent has not released the amount. It is the duty of the respondent to verify the records and consider the representation of the petitioner. Since the petitioner has invested lifetime savings, the respondent cannot harass the petitioner. Since the respondent has not taken any steps to consider the representation as per Annexure-D for release of amount, petitioner has made out a prima-facie case for issue of a writ of mandamus, as prayed for.
8. In view of the above, writ petitions are allowed.
Writ of mandamus is issued to the respondent to consider and settle the claim of the petitioner in respect of policy Nos.G-39189273, G-48620506, G-610311334 and G-39187078, if not already considered, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this Order. This Court hopes and trusts that the respondent will ensure proper settlement of petitioner’s claim, strictly in accordance with law.
kcm Sd/- JUDGE