Ajrudin Son of Patwari Vs H.D.F.C. Argo General Insurance Company Limited

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7281/2025

¶3

Ajrudin Son Of Patwari, Resident Of Village Sajanpuri, Hasanpur, District Alwar, Rajasthan.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

H.d.f.c. Argo General Insurance Company Limited, Office No. 2, Third Floor, C-98, Sanghvi Upasna Tower, Subhash Nagar, C- Scheme, Jaipur-302001, Through Manager, Insurance Company Of Vehicle Truck No. Rj-29-Ga-6476, Through Insurance Policy No. 2315202253767900000. Dated 30.05.2018 To Date 29.05.2019 Till Mid Ninght.

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner(s) : Mrs. Sudesh Kasana

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA

¶10

Order

¶11

12/01/2026

¶12

The present writ petition has been filed with the following

¶13

prayer:

¶14

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that your lordship

¶15

may graciously be pleased to accept and allow this writ petition and further be pleased to direct the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Alwar for decide the case No.408/2021 at an early date or within a period of 15 days in the larger interest of justice. Issue any other writ order or direction, which this Hon'ble

¶16

Court deems fit and proper, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner."

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Consumer Complaint No.408/2021 was filed in respect of nonpayment of insurance claim with regard to the stolen truck bearing Registration No.RJ29-GA-6476. She further submits that in the said claim, the pleading and service is complete, yet the complaint has not been decided despite passage of four years, therefore, she

¶18

(2 of 3) [CW-7281/2025]

¶19

prays that a direction may be issued to the leaned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Alwar to decide the same within a period of 15 days.

¶20

Heard and considered the submissions made at bar and perused the material available on record.

¶21

The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sangram Sadashiv Suryavanshi vs. State of Maharashtra¹ while relying upon the constitutional Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in High Court Bar Association, Allahabad vs. State of U.P.² , has deprecated the practice of the Courts issuing directions to the subordinate Courts to decide the matter within a timeline, the relevant extract of para 47.3 of High Court Bar Association, Allahabad (Supra) is reproduced as under:

¶22

“47.3. Constitutional courts, in the ordinary course, should refrain from fixing a time-bound schedule for the disposal of cases pending before any other courts. Constitutional courts may issue directions for the time- bound disposal of cases only in exceptional circumstances. The issue of prioritising the disposal of cases should be best left to the decision of the courts concerned where the cases are pending;"

¶23

In that view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to accept the argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner to issue a direction to the learned Commission to decide the pending Consumer Complaint No.408/2021 within 15 days.

¶24

The learned Commission is expected to regulate its own procedure in respect of the cases on board for effective disposal and to ensure that the cases are disposed of expeditiously within a reasonable period of time; at the same time, it is expected that the learned Commission will not entertain unnecessary and unwarranted requests for adjournment.

¶25

1 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3526

2 2024 INSC 150

[CW-7281/2025]

(3 of 3)