Dismissed

Jijabai Rambhau Gochade v. State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC22 Mar 2018WP/4585/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A petitioner challenged the repudiation of an insurance claim under the Farmer Personal Accident Insurance Scheme. The High Court held the writ petition not maintainable as the petitioner had exhausted remedies up to the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and a statutory appeal lay to the Supreme Court.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed on the ground of not being maintainable.

Jijabai Rambhau Gochade Vs State of Maharashtra and Others — Consumer Protection | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

( 1 ) wp4585.16

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 4585 OF 2016

¶4

Jijabai wd/o. Rambhau Gochade,..Petitioner
Versus

¶5

The State of Maharashtra & Ors...Respondents

¶6

Mr.A.S. Pavase, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.P.N. Kutti, AGP for respondent Nos. 1 & 2.
Mr.S.R. Bodade, Advocate for respondent No.3.

¶7

CORAM : S.S.SHINDE &
S.M.GAVHANE,JJ.
 RESERVED ON :01.02.2018
 PRONOUNCED ON :22.03.2018

¶8

ORDER : [PER : S.M. GAVHANE,J.] :

¶9

1.By this petition under Article 226 of the

¶10

Constitution of India, the petitioner has claimed

¶11

following substantive reliefs :

¶12

“B)By issuing writ of certiorari or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction, the
repudiation letter dated 05.08.2011 (Exh. “D”)
issued by respondent No.3 Insurance Company,
thereby repudiating the insurance claim of the
petitioner filed under Farmer Personal Accident
Insurance Scheme, claiming insurance claim of

¶13

( 2 ) wp4585.16

¶14

Rs.1,00,000/ may kindly be quashed and set
aside;

¶15

C)By issuing appropriate writ, order or
direction, the proposal submitted by the
petitioner under Farmer Personal Accident
Insurance Scheme, claiming Rs.1,00,000/ may
kindly be allowed with penal interest @ 15% from
the date of submission of proposal with further
direction to respondent No.3 to pay the said
amount within 15 days.

¶16

D)By issuing writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, order or directions, the
respondents may kindly be directed to pay
compensation of Rs.25000/ towards mental
torture, cost of the proceeding & financial
suffering”

¶17

2.We have heard learned Advocate appearing for the

¶18

petitioner, learned AGP appearing for respondent Nos.1

¶19

and 2 and learned advocate appearing for respondent No.3.

¶20

With their assistance, we have perused the pleadings in

¶21

the petition, reply affidavit filed on behalf of
respondent No.3 and the documents produced by the
petitioner.

¶22

3.There is no dispute that one late Rambhau

¶23

Raghunath Gochade, who died on 14.09.2010 due to drowning

¶24

in the well, was husband of the petitioner and an
agriculturist. On account of his death, the petitioner
claimed compensation as per Government Resolution dated
04.12.2009 and Corrigendum dated 05.03.2011 issued by the

¶25

Governmentforproper,speedyandeffective
implementation of the Farmer Individual Accident
Insurance Scheme, 2005 with respondent No.3 – New India
Assurance Co. Ltd. Along with all necessary documents
the petitioner submitted proposal to the Taluka
Agricultural Officer, DistrictBeed, within limitation.
Said proposal was rejected by the insurance company, by
the impugned order dated 05.08.2011.

¶26

4.Further, it is not disputed that aggrieved by
the impugned order, the petitioner filed complaint
bearing No.97 of 2011 before the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Beed. The District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum rejected the said complaint.
Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed appeal before
the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal

¶27

Commission, Mumbai, Circuit Bench at Aurangabad, bearing
No.126 of 2013. Said appeal was dismissed. Aggrieved by
the dismissal of the said appeal, the petitioner filed
Revision Petition No.1957 of 2015 before the National
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at New Delhi.
Said Revision Petition was dismissed for nonprosecution
as well as in default.

¶28

5.According to the petitioner, the repudiation
letter dated 05.08.2011 (Exh. “D”) of respondent No.3 is
illegal.

¶29

6.In the affidavitinreply, submitted on behalf
of respondent No.3Insurance Company, it is submitted
that insurance company has rightly repudiated the claim
of the petitioner on 05.08.2011 on the ground that as per
exclusion clause4 of the said policy, death of the
petitioner’s husband is not covered under the policy in
question. The petitioner exhausted available remedy
right from the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum

¶30

up to the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

¶31

by filing complaint, appeal and revision petition
respectively and as such failed to establish her claim up
to the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
and after being unsuccessful she has filed present writ

¶32

petition as a last attempt, though having remedy to
approach Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. The claim of the
petitioner was repudiated raising a serious dispute which
requires oral and documentary evidence for its
determination. The proper remedy is civil suit and not
writ petition. As such, as the petitioner is having
alternate remedy to prefer appeal before the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, the writ petition is not maintainable.

¶33

7.Learned Advocate appearing for respondent No.3
insurance company made submissions in the light of
aforesaid contentions and relying upon the ratio laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Cicily

¶34

Kallarackal Vs. Vehicle Factory, 1(SC) CPJ (Dec.) 2012

¶35

submits that the writ petition is not maintainable as

¶36

High Court has no jurisdiction to deal with the matter as

¶37

the statutory appeal is provided against the judgment and
order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission. In the said case, in paragraph 7, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed thus :

¶38

“7.While declining to interfere in the present
Special Leave Petition preferred against the
order passed by the High Court in exercise of
its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226
of the Constitution of India, we hereby make it
clear that the order of the Commission are
incapable of being questioned under writ
jurisdiction of the High Court, as a statutory
appeal in terms of Section 27A(1)(c) lies to
this Court. Therefore, we have no hesitation in
issuing a direction of caution that it will not
be proper exercise of jurisdiction by the High
Courts to entertain writ petitions against such
orders of the Commission.”

¶39

8.In the present case as observed earlier,

¶40

admittedly the petitioner has exhausted all the remedies

¶41

available to her after the rejection of her claim by the
letter dated 05.08.2011 by respondent No.3 right from the

¶42

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum up to the
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, by way
of complaint, appeal and revision. Therefore, applying

¶43

the ratio laid down in the case of Cicily (Supra), when

¶44

the remedy available to the petitioner is by way of

¶45

statutory appeal to the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as per
section 27A(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

¶46

the writ petition is not maintainable. Thus, when the

¶47

writ petition is not maintainable on the said ground

¶48

alone, same is liable to be dismissed. Therefore, we do

¶49

not wish to go into other contentions raised in the
petition. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. No
costs.

¶50

[S.M.GAVHANE,J.]

¶51

snk/2018/FEB18/ wp4585.16

Jijabai Rambhau Gochade v. State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jijabai Rambhau Gochade v. State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anil Banarasidas Jindal Died through Lrs Anita Anil Jindal and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Janardhan Hanumantrao Patil Salunke and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Rajesh Ramesh Sangore and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Sillod Education Society(Minority) Thr President Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Dhondiram Limbaji Sonawane Vs the Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra Mumbai and Others

Nivrati Nagnath Khalangre and Others Vs the Union of India and Others