JANAKKUMAR V AMARKOTIYA Vs. CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners - claimants of the postal Insurance amount have preferred this petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India challenging the communication dated 7/2/1997 where under the respondents asked for production of guardianship certificate in case of petitioner no. 2 as he was minor for receiving the amount insured on the death of the insured i. e. wife of petitioner no. l and mother of petitioner no. 2.

(2.) FACTS in brief deserves to be set out as under. The petitioner No. l's wife and No. 2's mother was insured and she had nominated her husband-petitioner no. l and son-petitioner no. 2 as legal nominees. Unfortunately the insured died and hence the insurance money were claimed by the petitioners. In response to the claim put up by the petitioners the department -respondents communicated that as policy contains nomination of petitioner no. 2, i. e. minor son of the husband, husband was required to produce guardianship certificate in respect of their minor son Jaykumar-petitioner no. 2 herein issued by the competent Court in favour of the father for receiving full claim in his favour. As the claim remains unsettled the petitioners moved this petition as stated herein above. Way back on 7/10/1998 this Court (Coram: C. K. Buch, J) observed inter alia that "prima facie it seems that the respondents have withheld the amount of insurance without any legal, cogent or convincing grounds. Hence Respondents are also directed to show cause as to why interim mandatory order should not be passed in favour of the petitioners as to the payment with interest"; and the matter was ordered to be listed on admission board on 6/11/1998. Ultimately under the order of this Court dated 20/12/2007 the amount of insurance money came to be deposited only in the year 2007 which has been deposited in the name of Registrar of this Court, who in turn was directed to invest in FDR initially for a period of three months on or before 24th December 2007. Accordingly the amount was deposited vide cheque dated 20/12/2007.

(3.) SHRI Yagnik for the petitioners contented that, despite there being a clear nomination made by the deceased insured, for no reason the amount of insurance money has been withheld contrary to the provision of law and the petitioners were constrained to file this petition. Even after filing the petition they were not paid the money and ultimately only in December 2007 the amount came to be deposited after the orders passed by this Court for depositing the same. He submits that in absence of any cogent reason or rule enabling them to withhold the money they were not justified in insisting for production of guardianship certificate in case of minor son, and who is minor even today. Shri yagnik submits that in fact petitioner no. 1- father is always working in the interest of his son and under the instruction of petitioner no. 1, Shri Yagnik states that the petitioner has no interest in the share of money of his son except his welfare and therefore, the apprehension on the part of the concerned respondent was absolutely ill-founded and unwarranted which has caused tremendous agony and has in fact acted contrary to the philosophy of insurance which is actually required to be helpful in time of need. Today the minor is prosecuting his studies and is residing with his father petitioner no. l and had this money been made available as and when it became due, then certainly same would have helped in overcoming the crisis that were faced by the family on account of dire need and sudden demise of the insured. Shri Yagnik has submitted that, therefore, not only that the petition deserves to be allowed but the respondents be saddled with appropriate cost and interest and direct them to pay interest for withholding the amount wrongfully for all these years.