JUDGMENT B.P. Das, J. 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition with a prayer to direct the O. P. S. to pay Rs. 2,00,000/- which she is entitled to get towards the insurance coverage of her husband, late Budhadev Panigrahi, who died in a road accident on 16-3-2005. 2. The undisputed facts are that during his lifetime, late Budhadev Panigrahi had obtained a Credit Card from the State Bank of India in the month of April, 2002. The State Bank of India had given a complementary personal insurance coverage of Rs. 2.00 lakhs in the event of loss of life resulting from rail, road or other accidents. After the death of her husband, the petitioner claimed the assured sum from O. P. 2 - Regional Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd.. Thereafter, O. P.1- Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd. by letter dated 24-8-2006 asked the petitioner to submit No Objection Certificate from the S.B.I. Card authorities under Annexure-2. On 14-11-2006 the petitioner submitted the No-Objection Certificate obtained from the Manager, Payment Assistance, S. B. I. Card (Annexure-3). Thereafter, O. P.1 sent a voucher of Rs. 1.00 lakh to be signed and returned for payment towards full and final settlement of the death claim. According to the petitioner, the dispute arose when the petitioner claimed that as per Annexure-6, the Certificate Insurance and the guideline issued by the S. B. I. Card, she is entitled to Rs. 2.00 lakhs, for which she issued a notice through her lawyer to O. P. 1 in order to know the reason to reduce the insurance coverage to Rs. 1,00,000/- by O. Ps. 1 and 2. But the O. Ps. did not give any reply, for which she has filed this writ petition for the relief indicated in the foregoing paragraph. 3. In the counter affidavit filed by O. Ps. 1 and 2, a stand has been taken that although initially the Insurance Company had granted insurance coverage of Rs. 2.00 lakhs to S. B. I. Credit Card holder, the same was changed subsequently and a new agreement was entered into between the insurer and the S. B. I. CPSL from 1-12-2002, wherein the assured amount was reduced to Rs. 1.00 lakh. Therefore, according to the insured, they are not liable to pay the amount of Rs. 2.00 lakhs as because the same was reduced by virtue of an agreement as aforesaid. 1.00 lakh. Therefore, according to the insured, they are not liable to pay the amount of Rs. 2.00 lakhs as because the same was reduced by virtue of an agreement as aforesaid. It is further urged that there is no direct agreement between the husband of the petitioner and the insurer to compel the insurer to pay the aforesaid amount, the death of the insured occurred after 1-12-2002, i.e., after the new agreement came into force, for which the petitioner is not entitled to get Rs. 2.00 lakhs on the death of her husband. 4. Having regard to the rival contentions of the parties, we refer to Annexure-6, which is the Certificate of Insurance issued by Sri Sameer Bahadur, Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd., certifying that "the holder of this Certificate, being an SBI Premium Cardholder is insured against loss of life due to an accident, up to Rs. 2 lakhs the amount specified overleaf, subject to exclusions, provisions and other terms as specified in the Master Policy No. 040900/ 46/01/266/01" and specifying the sum assured as Rs. 2.00 lakhs in the event of accidental death other than during air travel. Clause-2, which contains the heading of "Validity", is extracted hereunder: 2. Validity- The insurance cover is valid if, while the Master Policy is in force, credit facilities continue to be available on the SBI Card (i.e. SBI Card is valid for use and has not expired or been terminated or suspended) and that there are no outstanding greater than 90 days. The aforesaid condition of the policy would show that the policy was issued to the holder of Certificate being a SBI Card Holder and promise has been made to pay the card holder the amount of Rs. 2.00 lakhs. The fact of reduction of quantum of insurance coverage has never been communicated by S. B. I. during the lifetime of late Budhadev Panigrahi (the policy holder). The Insurance Company, in our considered opinion, is bound by its Certificate of Insurance and cannot escape the liability of paying the dues covered under the aforesaid Certificate on the plea that there is a change in the Master Policy and the agreement between the S. B. I. and the insured, to which the certificate holder is not a party. Accordingly, we hold that the insurer is liable to pay a sum of Rs. Accordingly, we hold that the insurer is liable to pay a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- (rupees two lakhs) to the petitioner towards insurance coverage of her husband, late Budhadev Panigrahi. It is pertinent to mention here that by virtue of the orders of this Court dated 30-6-2009 and 13-7-2009, the Insurance Company has already paid a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the petitioner and an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- (rupees one lakh) is in deposit with the Registry. Let the Registry release the said amount along with accrued interest in favour of the petitioner by way of account payee cheque on proper identification. Although permission had been granted on the prayer of the learned Counsel appearing for the S. B. I. (O. P. 4) to file counter affidavit vide order dated 25-8-2009, no counter affidavit was filed. Hence, liberty is also granted to the Insurance Company (O. P.1) to seek reimbursement of the excess amount paid to the petitioner, over and above, its agreement with the S. B. I., from the S. B. I. (O.P.4). The writ petition is allowed accordingly. I. Mahanty, J. 5. I agree.