Madras High Court
M/S.Amudha Engineering Company Pvt. ... vs Insurance Regulatory And Development ... on 9 November, 2021
Author: M.Dhandapani
Bench: M.Dhandapani
W.P.No.2299 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 09.11.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
W.P.No.2299 of 2020
And
W.M.P.No.2673 of 2020
M/s.Amudha Engineering Company Pvt. Ltd.,
Represented by its Managing Director,
R.Ayyasami ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India,
Rep. by its Chairman,
Sy No.115/1, Financial District,
Nanakramguda,
Gachibowli,
Hyderabad – 500 032.
2.Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.,
Rep. by its Associate Motor Claims Head – Tamilnadu,
Reliane House, 4th Floor,
No.6, Haddows Road,
Nungambakkam,
Chennai – 600 034. ... Respondents
Prayer:
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 2nd Respondent to settle the
insurance claim made by the Petitioner vide Claim No.3119085750,
dt.13.04.2019 under the category of Total Loss or Constructive Total
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.2299 of 2020
Loss as per the final Survey Report, dt.10.06.2019 submitted by the
certified surveyor Mr.A.R.Ramesh through the Policy issued by the 2nd
Respondent vide Policy No.120721823350000033, dt.17.05.2018.
For Petitioner : M/s.S.Xavier Felix
For Respondents : M/s.M.B.Ramya for R1
M/s.S.Arun Kumar for R2
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the second Respondent to settle the insurance claim made by the Petitioner vide Claim No.3119085750, dated 13.04.2019 under the category of Total Loss or Constructive Total Loss as per the final Survey Report, dated 10.06.2019 submitted by the certified surveyor Mr.A.R.Ramesh through the Policy issued by the second Respondent vide Policy No.120721823350000033, dated 17.05.2018.
2.The petitioner is the Managing Director of M/s.Amudha Engineering Company Private Limited and the Company is involving in logistics and transport of sand and blue metals and owns number of lorries. One such lorry bearing Registration No.TN12 M 3961 having valid permit was duly insured with the second respondent under Policy 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.2299 of 2020 No.120721823350000033 and other related taxes were also paid. The said lorry met with an accident at Natrampalli at 00.30 hours on 13.04.2019. Hence the petitioner raised claim for the accident under Insurance coverage vide Claim No.3119085750 before the second respondent and the second respondent also sent surveyor to the spot where the accident occurred and the surveyor also surveyed the damage caused to the lorry, however, the second respondent did not settle the amount. Hence the petitioner lodged a complaint to the Insurance Ombudsman on 01.07.2019, who inturn informed the petitioner that the Insurance Ombudsman does not have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint lodged by the Private Limited Company. Hence, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is entitled to claim the insurance coverage under the category of 'total loss' and would further submit that the damage caused to the lorry is more than 75% damage and it cannot be repaired and hence the petitioner is entitled to claim total IDV of Rs.23,60,000/-, however, the second respondent has not yet settled the amount. The learned counsel would further submit that this Court, 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.2299 of 2020 without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, may permit the petitioner to file appropriate claim petition before the Insurance Ombudsman.
4.The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent would submit that the first respondent is a formal party and that the dispute is inbetween the petitioner and the second respondent.
5.The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent would submit that the surveyor sent by the second respondent opined that the lorry is in repairable condition and would further submit that the petitioner instead of handing over the lorry for repair is claiming total loss from the second respondent which is un-sustainable one. The learned counsel would further submit that the disputed question of fact is the contractual agreement inbetween the petitioner and the second respondent and hence, the writ petition is not maintainable. However, the learned counsel raise no serious objection for referring the matter before the Insurance Ombudsman.
6.Considering the limited request now made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, this Court, without expressing any 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.2299 of 2020 opinion on the merits of the case, permits the petitioner to work out the remedy either before the Insurance Ombudsman or before any other competent civil Forum.
7.The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
09.11.2021 pri Speaking Order/ Non Speaking Order Index: Yes/ No Internet: Yes/ No To
1.Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India, Rep. by its Chairman, Sy No.115/1, Financial District, Nanakramguda, Gachibowli, Hyderabad – 500 032.
5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.2299 of 2020 M.DHANDAPANI,J.
pri W.P.No.2299 of 2020 And W.M.P.No.2673 of 2020 09.11.2021 6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis