Patna High Court
M/S Messina Beej Pvt.Limited vs New India Assurance Comp.Ltd.& on 27 August, 2010
Author: Shiva Kirti Singh
Bench: Shiva Kirti Singh, Hemant Kumar Srivastava
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No.167 OF 2006
------------
Appeal against the Judgment and Order dated 17-1-2006 passed by a
Bench of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 13046 of 2003
-----------
M/S MESSINA BEEJ PVT.LIMITED, A COMPANY REGISTERED
UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED AND
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE AT TAJPUR ROAD, SAMASTIPUR, BIHAR
THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, ANIL KUMAR MISHRA, S/O
SRI DATA RAM MISHRA, TAJPUR ROAD, SAMASTIPUR,
BIHAR.................................................................APPELLANT
Versus
1.NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMP.LTD THROUGH ITS MANAGING
DIRECTOR, 87, M.G. ROAD, FORT MUMBAI
2. REGIONAL MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY
LIMITED, B.S.P.C. BUILDING, 6TH FLOOR, FRASER ROAD, PATNA
3. DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY
LIMITED, CLUB ROAD, RAMNA, MUZAFFARPUR.
4. BRACH MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
MAGARDAHIGHAT, SAMASTIPUR.................. RESPONDENTS
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA.
---------------------
Shiva Kirti Singh, Heard learned counsel for the appellant and Hemant Kr.Srivastava,JJ learned counsel appearing for New India Assurance Company Ltd.
2. The writ court by the order under appeal dated 17-1- 2006 dismissed the writ petition preferred by the appellant in the year 2003 in view of statutory remedy available to him before the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority and /or Ombudsman.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant took us through the Redressal of Public Grievances Rules 1998. 2 We find that Rules 12 and 13 clearly vest necessary power in the Ombudsman to consider a complaint of the nature being raised by the appellant. It is also evident from Sub-sections (2),(3) and (4) of Section 64 UM of the Insurance Act 1938 that the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority also has power, though discretionary, to consider a grievance against improper or wrong settlement of his claim. We find no merit in the submission advanced on behalf of appellant that if this Court has power under Article 226 of the Constitution, it must exercise that power in all cases even if there be any alternative statutory remedy available to the petitioner.
4. We also find no merit in the submission that because notice was issued to the Insurance Company at the admission stage the Writ petition could have been considered only on merits and could not have been dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative statutory remedy . We find no merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed.
( Shiva Kirti Singh, J.)
Patna High Court, Patna
Dated 27th August,2010 ( Hemant Kumar Srivastava,J)
NAFR Naresh
3