Disposed

Bipin Bihari Subudhi v. the General Manager,Tata Aig Company,Bmc Building,Bbsr

Orissa HC8 Feb 2023WP(C)/7262/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners filed a writ petition for disbursement of crop insurance claims denied due to a typo in the G.P. name. The court disposed of the petition by directing the third opposite party to consider the claim within three months after receiving a joint representation.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners permitted to file joint representation; Opposite Party No. 3 directed to decide claim within three months.

Bipin Bihari Subudhi Vs the General Manager,Tata Aig… — Consumer Protection | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.7262 of 2019

¶3

Bipin Bihari Subudhi & Ors. …. Petitioners

¶4

-versus-

¶5

…. The General Manager, Tata Opposite Parties AIG Company, BMC Building, BBSR & Ors.

¶6

CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY

¶7

ORDER 08.02.2023

¶8

Order No 07. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.

¶9

2. Heard Mr. R. Das Mohapatra, learned counsel for the Petitioners, Mr. G.P. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the Opp. Party No.1, Mr. A.P. Das, learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for Opp. Party Nos. 2 & 3 and Mr. Baidhar Sahoo, learned counsel appearing for the Opp. Party No. 4.

¶10

3. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:-

¶11

“It is therefore prayed that let this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit this writ application, issue notice to the Opp. Parties and after hearing the counsel for the Parties, allow this writ application and give direction to the Opp. Party No. 1, to disburse the Insurance Claims amounts to the petitioners as per their entitlement within a stipulated period.

¶12

And any other or further order/orders, may kindly be passed to which the petitioners are entitled to get other consequential benefits.

¶13

And for which act of kindness, the Petitioners shall as in duty bound, ever pray.”

¶14

// 2 //

¶15

4. It is contended that because of wrong description of the name of the G.P. as Dholapathar in place of Dhalapathar the Petitioners are not getting the benefit of crop insurance for Kharif 2017, even though they were otherwise eligible to get the same. It is also contended that the Petitioners though have approached different authorities vide Annexure-2 series, but no decision has been taken in considering their claim.

¶16

5. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and taking into account the dispute involved in the present writ petition, this Court while disposing the writ petition, permits the Petitioners to file joint representation before the O.P. No. 3 within a period of three (3) weeks from today. O.P. No. 3 is directed to take a lawful decision on the same by giving opportunity to Opp. Party Nos. 1 & 4 as well as Petitioner No. 1 within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of such representation.

¶17

6. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶18

(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge

¶19

Sneha

¶20

Page 2 of 2

Bipin Bihari Subudhi v. the General Manager,Tata Aig Company,Bmc Building,Bbsr

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bipin Bihari Subudhi v. the General Manager,Tata Aig Company,Bmc Building,Bbsr

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Puspalata Dei@Mahanti Vs Anshuman Mahanti

Rahash Bihari Patra Vs State of Odisha

Mihir Ranjan Nayak Vs State of Odisha

PNB Metlife India Insurance Company Ltd.,Bengaluru Vs Public Utility Services, Ganjam and Gajapati

Jhasketan Pradhan Vs State of Orissa

Janaki Dalai Vs Kartikeswar Dalai