Mukesh Kumar v. The State Bank Of India General Insurance Company Limited And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4447 of 2019 ====================================================== Mukesh Kumar S/o Janak Sahni, Resident of Village-Bisanpur Dhanraj, P.S. Kudhni, Disrict Muzaffarpur (Bihar) ... ... Petitioner

Versus

1.

The State Bank of India General Insurance Company Limited through its Managing Director, Corporate and Registered Office,Natraj 101, 201 and 301, Junction of Western Express Highway and Andheri-Kurla Road,Andheri East,Mumbai-400069 2.

The State Bank of India General Insurance Company Limited through General manager, Plot B-18 and 19, Road No.16 Wagle Industrial State Near Indian Oil Petrol Pump, M.I.D.C. Thana (West), Mumbai-400604 3.

The State Bank of India General Insurance Company Limited through Branch Manager, 4th Floor, Unit No. 4001, 4002, Grand Plaza, Fraser Road, Post Office-G.P.O. Patna-800001 (Bihar) 4.

The Senior Manager, Sri Ram Finance Company Limited, Bhagwanpur, Muzaffarpur ... ... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Mazharul Hassan For the Respondent/s :

Mr.Kaushlendra Kumar Sinha ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 16-07-2019 It appears from the communication dated 06.09.2017 followed by the claim closure letter dated 21.11.2017 issued by the S.B.I. General Insurance Company Limited that the Insurance Company could not proceed with settlement of the claim in want of required documents. One of the grounds stated in the letter dated 06.09.2017 is that the petitioner had furnished invalid N.O.C. and Form-35, the reasons whereof could not be explained by the petitioner and subsequently the claim had to be closed.

Patna High Court CWJC No.4447 of 2019(2) dt.16-07-2019 2/2 This Court finds no reason to issue a writ of mandamus in the given facts and circumstances of the case. However, the Court would leave it open for petitioner to pursue his remedy if so available to him before any other appropriate court/forum and in case such a remedy is applied for, the concerned court/forum shall not oust the petitioner wholly on the ground that this Court has refused to issue mandamus. This writ application stands disposed off accordingly. (Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) ved/vats U