Sikandar Kumar v. The Union Of India And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5738 of 2016 ====================================================== Sikandar Kumar, Son of Sri Bhutta Sah, Resident of Village- Bhawanipur, PO- Bhatauna, PS Kudhani, district Muzaffarpur. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The Union Of India through its Secretary Finance Department, New Delhi. 2.

Chairman, Insurance Regulatory Development Authority New Delhi. 3.

The ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited through its Chairman ICICI Lombard House , 414, 4.

Regional Manager, ICICI Lombard General Authority Company Limited Patna.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

None For the Respondent/s :

None ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 30-04-2019 No one appears on behalf of the petitioner. None for the respondents is present.

After going through the records, this Court finds that this application has been preferred for quashing the letter as contained in Reference No.MOT/TT/August 16.11.2015 issued by the authority of ICICI Lombard GIC Ltd. whereby the insurance claim of the petitioner against his stolen three wheeler vehicle has been refused on the ground that the user had parked the captioned vehicle by leaving the key in the ignition. Petitioner has also prayed for a mandamus directing the respondents to make payment of the insurance claim. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the

Patna High Court CWJC No.5738 of 2016(2) dt.30-04-2019 2/2 respondent no.2 a plea has been taken that the petitioner has an alternative remedy available with the Insurance Ombudsman under Public Grievances Redressal Rules, 1998. In the aforesaid view of the matter, finding that the petitioner has got an alternative remedy to raise his claim before the Insurance Ombudsman in the light of the provisions of the Public Grievances Redressal Rules, 1998, this Court finds no reason to entertain this writ application. It is disposed off with liberty to the petitioner to seek his remedy before the appropriate forum in accordance with law. If such a remedy is applied for within a period of 30 days from today, the same will be considered by the competent authority/forum, as the case may be, on merit and shall not be dismissed on the ground of limitation.

The writ application stands disposed off accordingly. (Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) arvind/- U