Madras High CourtCONT P/1728/2018closed

S.Senapathi v. Praseetha

2018-08-23Honourable Mr Justice K. Ravichandrabaabu3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 23.08.2018

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU Contempt Petition No.1728 of 2018 S.Senapathi ... Petitioner -vsPraseetha The Agriculture Insurance Company of India Ltd., Old No.156, New No.323, Andhra Insurance Building 1st Floor, Thambuchetty Street, Chennai-600 001.

... Respondent Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, to punish the respondent for the willful disobedience of the order dated 19.03.2018 in WP.No.4491 of 2018.

For Petitioner :

Mr.Kanimozhi Mathi

O R D E R

This contempt petition is filed complaining that the order passed by this Court in WP.No.4491 of 2018 dated 19.03.2018 has not been complied with.

2. The writ petition was filed seeking mandamus directing the respondents therein to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 04.01.2018 and release his insurance claim. The said writ petition was disposed of on 19.03.2018, only with a direction to the fourth respondent therein (the respondent herein) to

dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 04.01.2018 on merits and accordance with law. It was also made clear that this Court has not expressed any view on the merits of the claim made by the petitioner, as it is for the fourth respondent to consider and decide.

3. This contempt petition was filed before this Court on 28.06.2018. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, after filing the contempt petition, the respondent herein passed an order dated 05.07.2018 on the representation of the petitioner, informing that the claim sought for by the petitioner was not admissible as per the Regional Office Claims Committee Report. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought to maintain the contempt petition, by contending that the said order dated 05.07.2018 was passed without recording the fact that the inspection was already done by the third respondent in the writ petition viz., The Assistant Director of Agriculture, Dharapuram, by noting down the damages and also the number of trees, which has fallen due to drought. Therefore, she contended that the fourth respondent is not justified in rejecting the claim of the petitioner without noting and recording the above said fact viz., the inspection conducted by the Assistant Director of Agriculture as stated supra.

4. This Court is now dealing with the contempt petition and therefore, it has to confine itself with the order already passed to find out whether such order is violated or not. Admittedly, the respondent herein has passed the order on 05.07.2018, no doubt, after filing of the contempt petition. Therefore, it is for the petitioner to work out his remedy against the said order in the manner known to law, since his claim for paying the insurance amount was rejected. Without doing so, the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner to entertain the contempt petition and proceed further to decide the merits of the order passed by the respondent in this petition cannot be sustained. Accordingly, without expressing any view on the merits of the order passed by the respondent, this contempt petition is closed, however, by granting liberty to the petitioner to work out his remedy as against the said order in the manner known to law.

SD/- ASSISTANT REGISTRAR(COMM.CASES) mk //Certified to be true copy// Dated at Madras this the day of 2018. COURT OFFICER(O.S.) from 25th day of September 2008 the Registry is issuing Certified copies of the Orders/Judgments/Decrees in this format.

sd/30/10/2018