Ritesh Tradefin Private Limited ... vs The New India Insurance Limited ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 1588 Cal

3rd March,
 2023
 (AK)
 02

                                 W.P.A 14929 of 2005

                    Ritesh Tradefin Private Limited and another
                                          Vs.
                    The new India Insurance Limited and others


                            Mr. Pradip Kumar Tarafder
                            Mr. Sambuddha Dutta
                            Mr. Sourav Sengupta
                                                   ...for the petitioners.

                            Mr. Soumalya Ganguli
                                                   ...for the respondents.

Affidavit-of-service filed in court today be kept on

record.

Learned counsel for the respondents-Insurance

Company had mentioned the matter on March 2, 2023

after the judgment of such date was passed.

Since none appeared for the Insurance Company at

the time of call, the matter had been heard ex parte in the

absence of the respondents. Hence, for the ends of

justice, a hearing was chosen to be given to learned

counsel for the Insurance Company on counsel's oral

prayer and the matter is appearing today for such

purpose upon notice to the learned advocate for the

petitioners.

Learned counsel for the Insurance Company seeks

to place reliance on a communication purportedly made

by the Insurance Company to the petitioners, subsequent

to the filing of the writ petition, to the effect that the

insurance-in-question is a third party insurance and does

not cover the claim of the petitioners.

It is claimed that the same was the ground for

refusal of grant of the claim to the petitioners.

Learned counsel for the petitioners, by placing

reliance on the refusal of the Insurance Company

annexed at page-51 (Annexure-P12) of the writ petition,

submits that the same clearly mentioned that the ground

of refusal was that the charge sheet of Asansol Police

Station would not be treated as final police report and

claim cannot be settled on that basis.

As such, the petitioners were requested by the

Insurance Company to send the "Final Police Report"

immediately along with the claim form duly filled in which

was allegedly retained by the petitioners.

It is submitted that it is well-settled from Mohinder

Singh Gill and another vs, The Chief Election Commission

reported at (1978) 1 SCC 405 onwards that the legality or

otherwise of an order passed by an authority must be

judged on the face thereof and the reasons contained

therein cannot be supplemented by a subsequent

affidavit.

For such proposition, learned counsel also cites

another judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in

Chandra Singh vs. State of Rajasthan and another

reported at (2006) 6 SCC 545, which followed the

proposition laid down in Mohinder Singh Gill (supra).

Upon a perusal of the refusal of the Insurance

Company, which has been relied on by the petitioners, it

is clear that the only reason for such refusal, cited in

such communication by the Insurance Company given

contemporaneously with the claim, was that the charge

sheet of the Asansol South Police Station which was

produced by the petitioners would not be treated as final

police report, for which reason the claim was refused.

In fact, the Insurance Company specifically insisted

upon the petitioners sending such "Final Police Report"

(whatever the same meant in the notion of the Insurance

Company) immediately along with the claim form duly

filled in.

As such, the communication squarely indicates that

the only ground of refusal was as cited therein.

At present juncture, by seeking to place reliance on

a post writ petition document, which was purportedly

sent by the respondents to the petitioners, the Insurance

Company is seeking to supplant/embellish its original

ground of refusal.

It is well-settled, as held in the judgments indicated

above, that the grounds of refusal with regard to a

statutory or an administrative order cannot be improved

subsequently by way of affidavit.

In such view of the matter, I do not find any reason

whatsoever to differ from the order dated March 2, 2023,

which was passed by taking into consideration the

materials-on-record.

In such view of the matter, the order dated March 2,

2023 is retained.

The oral prayer made by learned counsel for the

private respondents to recall the said order is hereby

refused.

Accordingly, WPA 14929 of 2005 remains disposed

of in terms of the previous order dated March 2, 2023.

Urgent photostat copies of this order, if applied for,

be given to the parties upon compliance of all requisite

formalities.

(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)