High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/14468/2022disposed of

Anish Kumar v. Union Of India And ORS.

2022-07-11Mr. Justice Raj Mohan Singh3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.14468 of 2022(O&M) Date of Decision: 11.07.2022 Anish Kumar -Petitioner

Versus

Union of India and others -Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJ MOHAN SINGH

Present:

Mr. Vijay Lath, Advocate, for the petitioner.

**** RAJ MOHAN SINGH, J. (Oral) Petitioner has preferred this writ petition for the issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to decide the representation dated 02.03.2022 filed by the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that one Baljinder Kumar was the owner of vehicle No.PB-06-V-4122. The aforesaid vehicle was insured in his name by respondent No.4 from 24.07.2018 to 23.07.2019. Baljinder Kumar sold the vehicle in question to the petitioner and thereafter, the petitioner applied for transfer of the aforesaid vehicle in his name by submitting all the documents and requisite fee vide receipt dated 08.12.2018. The certificate of registration was issued in

the name of the petitioner and respondent No.4 was duly intimated in respect of transfer of ownership of the vehicle in the name of the petitioner. The vehicle in question was being used as 'Goods Carrier'. On 25.12.2018, the vehicle was being plied for the aforesaid business in the State of Bihar. The vehicle in question got stucked in traffic blockage and the unknown persons started causing damage to the vehicle and ultimately, set the vehicle on fire. FIR No.479 of 2018 was registered on 28.12.2018 at Police Station Goriak Chak, District Patna. An intimation was given to the Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited on 26.12.2018 and a surveyor was also deputed to assess the damage caused to the vehicle. The surveyor after assessing the damage, submitted a report to the United India Insurance Company Limited. The claim of the petitioner in respect of vehicle was referred to respondent No.4 and respondent No.4 has not adhered to the claim of the petitioner despite numerous representations made by the petitioner.

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner would be satisfied in case, his detailed representation dated 02.03.2022 in respect of his claim is ordered to be decided by respondent No.4 within a stipulated period.

At this stage, without meaning anything on merits of the case, it would be just and appropriate to direct respondent No.4 to take notice of pending representation of the petitioner dated 02.03.2022 and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law, preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

Disposed of.

11.07.2022 (RAJ MOHAN SINGH) Prince JUDGE

1. Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No

2. Whether reportable :

Yes/No