Disposed¶8

Shiv Charan Singh v. Smt Rajeshwari Singh Muni & Ors.

Delhi HC9 Jan 2025CONT.CAS(C)/14/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contempt petition disposed as not pressed; compliance sought with order dated 19.03.2024 in W.P.(C) 10775/2022; Insurance Ombudsman Noida award dated 17.06.2019; 'admissible claim' not quantified; sum insured Rs. 20 lacs; receipt of Rs. 16,18,500/- on 10.07.2024; grievance over wrongful deduction of balance; liberty to sue for recovery; Shiv Charan Singh v Smt Rajeshwari Singh Muni & Ors.; High Court of Delhi; Justice Manoj Jain; CONT.CAS(C) 14/2025.

What did the court decide?

Contempt petition disposed of as not pressed; petitioner retains liberty to file appropriate petition/suit seeking recovery of the balance amount allegedly wrongfully deducted while settling the claim; all rights and contentions of the parties reserved. ¶8

Shiv Charan Singh Vs Smt Rajeshwari Singh Muni & Ors. — Contempt of Court | Delhi HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶8

Issue for consideration

Whether contempt proceedings should be initiated against the respondents for non-compliance with the directions contained in the order dated 19.03.2024 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench in W.P. (C) No. 10775/2022. +1 more

¶1

Court's answer

Upon learned counsel for the petitioner submitting that he does not press his present contempt petition, the petition is disposed of as not pressed.

¶8

Ratio / Principle

Liberty, as prayed, is available to the petitioner to file appropriate petition/suit seeking recovery of the balance amount which, according to the petitioner, has been wrongfully deducted while settling the claim.

¶9

Key takeaways

The award of the Insurance Ombudsman is very specific and quantifies no amount; it categorically directs payment of the 'admissible claim'. The petitioner's contention that the admissible claim must equal the sum insured was not adjudicated, all rights and contentions of the parties being expressly reserved (para 10).obiter¶6

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi HC, CONT.CAS(C) 14/2025 (Manoj Jain, J.) (decided 09.01.2025): Civil contempt petition alleging respondents' non-compliance with the co-ordinate bench order dated 19.03.2024 in W.P.(C) No. 10775/2022, which had directed implementation, within eight weeks, of the Insurance Ombudsman, Noida award dated 17.06.2019 (payment of the 'admissible claim' after submission of requisite documents; award quantified no amount). Petitioner had admittedly received Rs. 16,18,500/- on 10.07.2024 against a sum insured of Rs. 20 lacs, his grievance being limited to the deduction of the balance. Counsel declined to press the petition; it was disposed of as not pressed, with liberty to seek recovery of the balance through an appropriate petition/suit and all rights and contentions reserved.

¶1

$~112

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CONT.CAS(C) 14/2025 & CM APPL. 782/2025

¶4

SHIV CHARAN SINGH .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Kishore and Mr. Amit Kumar Gupta, Advocates

¶6

versus

¶7

SMT RAJESHWARI SINGH MUNI & ORS. .....Respondent Through: None

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN

¶10

O R D E R % 09.01.2025

¶11

Petitioner seeks initiation of contempt proceedings against respondents for not complying with the specific directions contained in order dated 19.03.2024 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. (C) No. 10775/2022.

¶12

By virtue of the aforesaid order, respondents were directed to implement the award dated 17.06.2019 passed by Insurance Ombudsman, Noida within a period of eight weeks.

¶13

It will be worthwhile to mention herein that as per award passed by Insursance Ombudsman, taking into account all the facts and circumstances of the case, insurance-company concerned was directed to pay “admissible claim” to the claimant after submission of requisite documents by the claimant.

¶14

Admittedly, petitioner has thereafter received a sum of Rs. 16,18,500/from the insurance-company on 10.07.2024.

¶15

CONT.CAS(C) 14/2025 1

¶16

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/01/2025 at 12:36:20

¶17

Grievance of the petitioner is limited to the effect that since sum insured was Rs. 20 lacs, insurance-company could not have deducted any amount. Petitioner wants to contend that the „admissible claim‟ would be the sum insured and nothing less.

¶18

Fact, however, remains that award is very specific and award does not quantify any amount as such and rather categorically records that the petitioner be given “admissible claim”.

¶19

After hearing arguments for some time, learned counsel for petitioner submits that he does not press his present contempt petition but seeks liberty to file appropriate petition/suit seeking recovery of the balance amount which according to the petitioner has been wrongfully deducted while settling the claim.

¶20

In view of aforesaid, present contempt petition is disposed of as not pressed.

¶21

Liberty, as prayed, is always available to the petitioner.

¶22

All the rights and contentions of the parties are reserved.

¶23

MANOJ JAIN, J

¶24

JANUARY 9, 2025/ dr

¶25

CONT.CAS(C) 14/2025 2

¶26

Shiv Charan Singh v. Smt Rajeshwari Singh Muni & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiv Charan Singh v. Smt Rajeshwari Singh Muni & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dimple Sachdeva Vs Sanjeev Kumar Mittal & Anr.

Dipti Sharma Vs Delhi Skill and Entrepreneurship University & Ors.

Kamlesh Kumar Gupta Vs Naresh Kumar & Ors.

Parmar Naran Bhai Rupa Bhai & Anr. Vs Sh Govind Mohan & Ors.

Rambir Singh Vs Ajay Kumar Bhalla & Anr.

Ramesh Chand Vs Nembati and Ors.

Mr. Suraj Kumar Gupta Vs Mrs. Manju

Habib Ahmad Vs the Commissioner MCD and Ors.

Dimple Sachdeva Vs Sanjeev Kumar Mittal & Anr.

Dipti Sharma Vs Delhi Skill and Entrepreneurship University & Ors.

Kamlesh Kumar Gupta Vs Naresh Kumar & Ors.

M/S Aimlay Private Limited through Its Directors Vs Union of India through the Secretary Ministry of Law and Justice & Ors.

Lokesh Mittal Vs Reserve Bank of India and Ors.

Vijay Gupta Vs RBI Ombudsman & Anr.