Karnataka High Court
K. E. Shanmukappa vs Union Of India on 20 April, 2023
Author: Ravi V Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V Hosmani
-1-
WP No. 26827 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF APRIL, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
WRIT PETITION NO.26827 OF 2018 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
K. E. SHANMUKAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
S/O. K. ESHWARAPPA,
H.NO.11, KANCHIGANAL-1 (ASALI),
CHANNAGIRI TALUK,
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI M. VINAYA KEERTHY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. UNION OF INDIA,
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS,
NEW DELHI - 110 001.
2. AXIS BANK.
KHAN MARKET, NEW DELHI - 110 001,
REP. BY ITS MANAGER.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SHIVAKUMAR, CGC., FOR R1;
Digitally signed by NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)
GURURAJ D
Location: High THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE
Court of Karnataka
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED
LETTER DATED 27.12.2017 ISSUED BY THE R-2 [ANNEXURE-B]
DIRECT THE R-2 TO RELEASE THE ACCIDENT INSURANCE CLAIM
BENEFITS WITH RESPECT TO THE SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT
NO.916010045137557 HELD BY THE PETITIONER'S SON LATE
K.S.THIPPESWAMY WITH THE R-2 BANK.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN
B-GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
WP No. 26827 of 2018
ORDER
Challenging endorsement dated 27.12.2017 at Annexure- B passed by respondent no.2 - bank seeking for writ of mandamus to direct bank to release accident insurance claim benefits on account of death of petitioner's son - late K.S.Thippeswamy, who was having savings bank account bearing no.916010045137557 with it, this writ petition is filed.
2. Sri M. Vinaya Keerthy, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner's son - late K.S.Thippeswamy, was working as PSI (Exe) with Delhi Police died on 17.01.2017 in train accident. While in service, he had opened savings bank account bearing no.916010045137557 with respondent no.2 - Bank and salary was being credited to said account. Upon death of K.S.Thippeswamy, service benefits were settled by respondent no.1. However, thereafter one of colleagues of deceased informed petitioner about respondent no.2 - Bank offering accidental death insurance coverage to account holders. Immediately, thereafter, petitioner made claim before bank, under impugned endorsement, it has rejected claim stating :
"The Claim is repudiated due to the delay in submission of Claim Documents".-3- WP No. 26827 of 2018
3. It was submitted that said endorsement was totally devoid of any particulars, cryptic and lacking reason. Further, petitioner's son died on 17.01.2017 and rejection of claim by respondent no.2 - Bank on ground of delay in December, 2017 would be arbitrary and illegal. No rule, regulation or even time limit within which claim was to be made is stated. Hence endorsement called for interference.
4. On other hand, Sri Shivakumar, learned Central Government Standing Counsel for respondent no.1 submitted referring to statement of objections that entire terminal benefits were settled by respondent no.1 by rendering all necessary assistance and it was not concerned with claim of petitioner against respondent no.2.
5. Respondent no.2 - Axis Bank is served and unrepresented.
6. Heard learned counsel and perused writ petition record.
7. On perusal of Annexure-B, except bare assertion that claim is repudiated due to delay, there are no other particulars stated. Though petitioner appears to have made claim during same year, and delay occurring on account of lack -4- WP No. 26827 of 2018 of knowledge about entitlement, rejection would prima facie would not stand to reason.
8. Further in Annexure-A, respondent no.1 has informed respondent no.2 - bank about death of account holder who is petitioner's son. Therefore, whether respondent no.2 - bank had informed petitioner about entitlement to claim insurance benefit etc., and whether petitioner had failed to apply within time would require to be determined.
9. But, as respondent no.2 is a private bank, invocation of writ remedy would not be appropriate. Petitioner would have to approach Banking Ombudsman.
Hence, writ petition is disposed of, reserving liberty to petitioner to approach Banking Ombudsman.
In case, petitioner approaches Banking Ombudsman within six weeks, Banking Ombudsman shall consider petitioner's claim and pass appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible.
Sd/-
JUDGE GRD