Disposed

Ance O.Reji, v. the Divisional Manager

Kerala HC25 Jan 2021WP(C)/1262/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner approached High Court for writ relief regarding non-payment of insurance claim due to discrepancy in policy address vs. actual damage location. Court held it cannot adjudicate disputed factual contractual claims and directed petitioner to approach Insurance Ombudsman.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; petitioner permitted to approach the Insurance Ombudsman for redressal of grievances.

Ance O.Reji, Vs the Divisional Manager — Insurance | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶4

MONDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021/5TH MAGHA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.1262 OF 2020(G)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

ANCE O.REJI, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O. REJI POULOSE, PONNAL HOUSE, VETTICKAL P.O., THIRUVANIYOOR, PUTHENCRUZ, ERNAKULAM - 682 314.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.V.JOHN MANI SHRI.S.JAYANT SHRI.VARGHESE SABU SMT.MANJU ELSA ISAC

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., OPPOSITE MUNICIPAL BUS STAND, THRIPUNITHURA, ERANKULAM - 682 301.

¶11

2 THE MANAGER, CANARA BANK, THRIPUNITHURA BRANCH, THRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM 682 301.

¶12

3 THE MANAGER, CANARA BANK, REGIONAL OFFICE, SPENCER JUNCTION, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, 695 001.

¶13

R1 BY ADV. SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN R1 BY ADV. SRI.LAL K.JOSEPH

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C)No.1262/2020

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 25^th day of January, 2021

¶19

The petitioner has aggrieved by non payment of insurance coverage, in respect of his industrial unit.

¶20

The petitioner would contend that he availed credit facilities/loans from respondents 2 and 3 in respect of his industrial unit at 32/33D/, Khadher Haji, South Kalamassery, Industrial Estate, Kalamassery. During the floods, substantial damage was caused to the stock of the petitioner. At the instance of the petitioner, an Insurance Surveyor assessed the damage caused at 5,12,162/against the claim of the petitioner for 19,67,196/-.

¶21

The 1^st respondent-insurer however refused to honour the claim on the ground that in the insurance policy at Clause 6 Block Details, the location of the insured premises was shown as 'Iribnam, Ernakulam KL 1133, Irimpanam KL, Kerala, India 682 309'. The Standing

¶22

¶23

WP(C)No.1262/2020

¶24

Counsel for the 1^st respondent would contend that it is a premise located at Irimpanam and the insurer is not bound to settle a claim in respect of damage occurred in a building of the petitioner at Kalamassery.

¶25

I have gone through the pleadings in the writ petition and heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the 1^st respondent.

¶26

Evidently, Ext.P7 insurance policy was taken at the instance of the Divisional Office of the 2^nd respondent bank. The intention was to cover the industrial unit of the petitioner, which the petitioner would state, situated at Kalamassery. The address at Irumpanam in clause 6 of insurance policy therefore can only be a mistake. However, this Court in exercise of Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot adjudicate private contractual claims where there are disputed questions on fact.

¶27

The learned Standing Counsel on the other hand would submit that the petitioner can very well approach the

¶28

¶29

¶30

Insurance Ombudsman for redressal of his grievances.

¶31

In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to approach the Insurance Ombudsman. If the petitioner approaches the Insurance Ombudsman, this Court is sure that the Ombudsman will consider the grievances of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶32

Sd/- N. NAGARESH JUDGE

ncd

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶38

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF UDYOG AADHAAR CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY MINISTRY OF MICRO SMALL & MEDIUM ENTERPRISES TO PETITIONER'S ENTERPRISE IMPULSE FURNITURE

¶39

EXHIBIT P2	A TRUE COPY OF LICENSE ISSUED BY
	KALAMASSERY MUNICIPALITY TO PETITIONER'S
	ENTERPRISE UNDER KERALA MUNICIPALITY ACT 1994
EXHIBIT P3	A TRUE COPY OF GST REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO PETITIONER'S ENTERPRISE BEARING REGISTRATION NUMBER 32AIDPA5581H1ZM
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION ISSUED BY COMMERCIAL TAXES DEPARTMENT,
	GOVERNMENT OF KERALA AS RULE 17(14) OF KERALA VALUE ADDED TAX RULES, 2005.
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF LICENSE FEE FOR ADVANCE COLLECTION OF REVENUES FOR THE PERIOD 2015- 16 BY KALAMASSERY MUNICIPALITY
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF LETTER ISSUED BY PETITIONER TO 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 04-05-2018
EXHIBIT P7	A TRUE COPY OF THE STANDARD FIRE AND SPECIAL PERILS POLICY ISSUED BY THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD
EXHIBIT P8	A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT TO PETITIONER DATED 26/09/2019
EXHIBIT P9	TRUE COPY OF SURVEY REPORT SUBMITTED BY SURVEYOR APPOINTED BY 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 24-07-2019
EXHIBIT P10	TRUE COPY OF PHOTOGRAPHS OF PETITONER'S ESTABLISHMENT TO SHOW DAMAGES SUSTAINED ON FLOOD

Ance O.Reji, v. the Divisional Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ance O.Reji, v. the Divisional Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Edison Joy, Vs Liberty Videocon General Insurance Company Ltd.

Aswani Vs Kerala State Sports Council

Sreelakshmi Cashew Company Vs the Ombudsman for Insurance

T.T.Sunny Vs State of Kerala

The Insurance Director Vs Amina Sebastian

Rejumon Varghese Vs Government of Kerala