Urmilabai Parlahad Bhujbal v. The State Of Maharashtra And Another

( 1 ) 929 wp 1087.17

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD 929 WRIT PETITION NO. 1087 OF 2017 URMILABAI PARLAHAD BHUJBAL

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER ...

Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Dhage Vaibhav B. AGP for Respondents: Mr. D.R. Kale Advocate for Respondents : Mr. V.P. Raje h/f. R.H. Dahat for R/2. ...

CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI & MANGESH S. PATIL, JJ.

DATE :

12.07.2017.

P.C. :- .

After having called for an explanation from the Tahsildar, he is present in Court so also his affidavit is tendered. We do not think that there is any state inaction. All concerned form the State machinery including the Tahsildar have rendered assistance to the petitioner so as to enable her to obtain the benefits of an insurance policy. The Tahsildar's affidavit indicates that the assistance was rendered. 2.

Even the bank as far back as on 06.09.2006 called for certain documents and we do not know whether the petitioner supplied them or not. Even if those documents were supplied in the year 2011, we do not think whether in 2011 the policy was still alive. That apart it is a

( 2 ) 929 wp 1087.17 disputed issue and a claim. It was raised before the District Consumer Forum where as well the petitioner failed for she could not establish and prove the deficiencies/defect in the services of insurance company. An appeal to the State Consumer Commission i.e. Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was also unsuccessful. 3.

It would be highly risky and unsafe then, to rely upon the version of the petitioner and grant any relief. The writ petition is dismissed.

[MANGESH S. PATIL, J.] [S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.] mub