JUDGMENT
Gokulakrishnan, C.J.
1. This Letters Patent Appeal filed by the appellant National Insurance Company Limited is directed against the order passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in Spl. Civil Appln. No. 4589 of 1985. Respondent No. 1 herein straightway moved the learned single Judge under Art. 226 of the Constitution for a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the appellant insurance company to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- to respondent No. 1 payable under the personal accident policy of her husband. The learned single Judge allowed the said petition and directed such payment claimed by respondent No. 1 subject to certain conditions regarding obtaining a declaration, from the competent Court that she is a guardian of the property of the two minors and also the direction from the said Court to deal with 2/3rd share of the amount that is payable to the said minors. The learned Advocate General appearing for the appellant insurance company pointed out the decision reported in LIC of India v. Kiran Sinha, AIR 1985 SC 1265 and submitted that the order passed by the learned single Judge cannot be sustained in view of the said judgment. In the said judgment the Supreme Court has specifically held as follows :
“We have heard the learned Attorney General and Shri A. K. Sen, learned counsel for the respondent. The High Court could not have in the circumstances of this case directed the payment of the money claimed under the insurance policies in question in a petition filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution. The only remedy available to the respondent in this case was a suit before a Civil Court. The judgment of the High Court is, therefore, set aside.”
Following the aforesaid decision, this Letters Patent Appeal has to be allowed. The result will be that Special Civil Application No. 4589 of 1985 will stand dismissed.
2. Nevertheless, the learned Advocate General appearing for the appellant insurance Company states that the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- being the amount claimed by respondent No. 1 herein has already been deposited in this Court. On behalf of the appellant insurance company he further states that the said amount may be ordered to be paid over to respondent No. 1 herein by way of compensation claimed by her. The learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 states that the said amount may be invested in a fixed deposit till the two minors who have share in the said amount attain majority. In view of these statements made by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, instead of driving respondent No. 1 to a civil suit, the matter can be disposed of here itself on the following terms :
3. The amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- now lying deposited in the High Court will be invested in a fixed deposit for a period of two years in a nationalised bank at the choice of respondent No. 1, by the Registrar of this Court in the names of respondent No. 1 and the two minors, within a period of one week from today. The said fixed deposit will be renewed on expiry of the period of two years till the two minors attain majority. Respondent No. 1 is at liberty to withdraw interest which may accrue due on the said fixed deposit without giving any security. Respondent No. 1 will also execute a bond and file the same in this Court undertaking that she will indemnify the appellant insurance company in respect of claims which may be made by third parties in respect of the said amount of Rs. 1,00,000/which is directed to be invested on behalf of the respondent and her two minors. Such indemnity bond has to be filed before the amount is invested in a nationalised bank by the Registrar.
4. This appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent only.
5. Appeal partly allowed.