Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. Madras High Court
  4. /
  5. 2017
  6. /
  7. January

R.Rajalakshmi vs The Divisional Manager

Madras High Court|21 November, 2017

JUDGMENT / ORDER

Mr.S.Kesavan, learned counsel takes notice for the respondents. By consent of the parties, the main writ petition is taken up for final disposal.
2. The petitioner seeks for a mandamus to direct the respondents herein to consider the petitioner's claim ID No.0185500000001 under "Pradhan Mantri Jeevan Jyoti Bima Yojana"(PMJJBY) scheme for the death of the petitioner's mother and consequently, credit the claim amount to the petitioner's SB Account vide A/c.No.1855108008726, within a period fixed by this Court.
3. Heard both sides.
4. The petitioner's mother, by name R.Lalitha, W/o Ramachandran was having a savings account at the 3rd respondent bank with Account No. 1855108008726 by appointing the petitioner herein as the nominee in the said account. The petitioner's mother died on 26.01.2017. The petitioner's mother also paid the insurance premium through the above said S.B. account with the Central Government in respect of the scheme called "Pradhan Mantri Jeevan Jyoti Bima Yojana". The cover under the said Scheme is, for death, only to the nominee. After the death of the petitioner's mother, she approached the 3rd respondent Bank and claimed the insurance amount under "Pradhan Mantri Jeevan Jyoti Bima Yojana" scheme. The petitioner was called upon to send the claim application to the concerned higher authority for realising the claim amount. It is stated that the petitioner sent necessary documents to the 3rd respondent in support of such claim. However, the 3rd respondent bank so far has not acted on the petitioner's claim inspite of her repeated request. Therefore, after making a written request on 23.10.2017, the present writ petition is filed before this Court.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank fairly submitted that there is no dispute with regard to the claim made by the petitioner and only for want of rectifying certain mistakes or defects in the Claim Petition, the matter is being kept pending. Therefore, he submitted that if the petitioner come forward to rectify the defects in the application already made, her claim will be considered without any further delay.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner would approach the 3rd respondent bank and rectify the mistakes/defects, if any, pointed out by the 3rd respondent.
7. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders after getting the mistakes/defects rectified by the petitioner in the Claim Petition. The said exercise shall be done by the respondents within a period of four weeks form the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
21.11.2017 Speaking/Non speaking Index: Yes/No vsi To
1. The Divisional Manager, Canara Bank Division Office, Kamalalayam, Dharmapuri, Dharmapuri District.
2. The Circle Manager, Canara Bank Circle Office, (Opposite DMS) Thenampet, Chennai.
3. The Branch Manager, Canara bank, Authurai Branch, Authurai, Chetpet Taluk, Thiruvannamalai District.
K.RAVICHANDRABAABU,J.
vsi W.P.No.29110 of 2017 21.11.2017
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

R.Rajalakshmi vs The Divisional Manager

Court

Madras High Court

JudgmentDate
21 November, 2017