Hyderabad: A division bench comprising Chief Justice Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta and Justice P.V. Sanjay Kumar of the AP High Court on Tuesday cleared the way for land acquisition to construct a toll plaza at Chowtuppal of Nalgonda district on the four lane highway between Vijayawada and Hyderabad.
The bench was vacating a stay order granted by a single judge that restrained the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) authorities from acquiring land for construction of the toll plaza.
The bench was hearing a plea by Batharaju Sankaraiah and nine other farmers challenging acquisition of 22 acres when it was not for any public purpose and was aimed at ‘enriching’ the contractor G.M.R. Hyderabad Vijayawada Express Highway Pvt Ltd.
They told the court that they are not opposing the road or the consequent land acquisition for the same and said that they are opposing the invocation of the Land Acqui-sition Act even for the purposes of building private facilities meant for the contractor.
S.S. Varma, counsel for the National Highway Authority contended that as per the policy of the Centre, providing land for toll plazas and other necessary amenities come under the purview of a “public purpose”.
Insurance firm penalised
The AP State Consumer Redressal Commission directed the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC)?to pay Rs 25,000 for making a frivolous attempt before the District Consumer Forum to reject a claim under a insurance policy.
M. Rajeswar, a resident of Adilabad district, had obtained a life insurance policy from LIC for an assured sum of Rs 3,00,000, for a period of 16 years, on March 28, 2009. The policy was due to mature on March 28, 2025.
However, the policy holder died on August 12, 2009, and his wife, who is the legal heir, submitted a claim.
The insurance firm repudiated the claim on November 18, 2009 on the ground that the insured had suppressed that he had post-polio residual paralysis on the right lower limb, in the proposal form.
The District Forum allowed the complaint on the premise that death occurred due to cardiac arrest. The failure of the firm to prove the repudiation of the claim was made on dependable evidence.
Aggrieved by the order, the corporation moved an appeal before the commission. A three-member bench of the commission dismissed the appeal and held that the repudiation of the claim was not made on any contemporaneous evidence but on unacceptable piece of evidence.
It also held that the company had made a frivolous attempt before the Forum to support its case. It had also filed an appeal which was “frivolous and also vexatious.”
The commission said that the disability of the insured was so negligible that one cannot notice it unless he was examined. The insured had come to the LIC office and obtained the insurance policy.
He had presumably undergone a medical checkup. The company had issued the insurance policy knowing that the insured was suffering from post-polio residual paralysis of his right lower limb.
While dismissing the appeal, the commission directed the company to pay punitive costs of Rs 25,000 to the family of the insured and Rs 25,000 to the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Welfare Fund within four weeks.
