Jharkhand High Court
Asha Singh vs The New India Assurance Company Limited ... on 22 July, 2025
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
(2025:JHHC:21091)
2023:JHHC:44512
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No.4491 of 2012
------
Asha Singh, Wife of- Late Ram Chritra Prasad Singh, Resident of-
Hose No.64, Zone No.1/B, Road No.-3, Sadhudera, P.O. and P.S.-
Birsanagar, Jamshedpur, District- East Singhbhum
... Petitioner
Versus
1. The New India Assurance Company Limited represent through its
divisional manager, Divisional Office- Howrah, Madhusudan
Apartment, 2nd Floor, P-18, Dobson lane, District- Howrah (West
Bengal)
2. The Divisional manager, the New India Assurance Company
Limited, Divisional Office1, Main Road, P.O. G.P.O, P.S. Lower
Bazar, District- Ranchi ... Respondents
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Arwind Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Ashok Kr. Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Anshuman Kumar, Advocate
------
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
By the Court:- Heard the parties.
2. This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India with a prayer for issuance of appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus
commanding upon the respondents to pay the insured-petitioner Rs.50,000/-
with penal interest, as she is the nominee of policyholder Ashu Ranjan Singh,
who died in a road accident on 22.10.2001 as also the learned State Consumer
Commission directed the respondents to settle the claim vide its order dated
(2025:JHHC:21091)
2023:JHHC:44512
30.03.2007 but still the respondents have failed to pay the insured amount to
the petitioner.
3. The brief fact of the case is that the son of the petitioner obtained an
insurance policy in which the petitioner is the nominee. The son of the
petitioner died in a road accident. The petitioner filed a complaint case being
C.C. No.42 of 2005 before the District Consumer Forum, East Singhbhum. The
District Consumer Forum allowed the claim vide order dated 17.03.2006 and
directed the respondent company to pay the sum. The respondent company
challenged the same before the Jharkhand State Consumer Commission, Ranchi
vide F.A. No.309 of 2006. The State Consumer Commission directed the
petitioner to file the copies of the required documents before the respondent
company and the respondent company was directed to settle the claim without
any further delay vide its judgment dated 30.03.2007 and set aside the
impugned order before it being the order dated 17.03.2006 passed by the
District Consumer Forum, East Singhbhum and directed the complainant/writ
petitioner to file copies of the required papers before the respondents of this
Writ Petition and observed that the claim must be settled without any further
delay. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in the instant Writ
Petition, be allowed.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner has
already approached the concerned forum under the provisions of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and if the petitioner is aggrieved by the order of
the Jharkhand State Consumer District Redressal Commission in F.A. No.309 of
2006, she has the remedy under Section 21 B (b) of the Consumer Protection
(2025:JHHC:21091)
2023:JHHC:44512
Act, 1986 to file a revision before the National Commission or else the
petitioner can comply with the order of the Jharkhand State Consumer District
Redressal Commission by filing copies of the required papers before the
respondent insurance company but this Writ Petition, being without the
relevant documents which the Jharkhand State Consumer District Redressal
Commission, Ranchi has directed the petitioner to file before the respondents,
is not maintainable. Hence, it is submitted that this Writ Petition, being without
any merit, be dismissed.
5. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully
going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention
here that the petitioner first approached the Consumer District Redressal
Forum, East Singhbhum by filing C.C. No.42 of 2005. An order in her favour
was passed. The same has been set aside by the Jharkhand State Consumer
District Redressal Commission vide judgment dated 30.03.2007 in F.A. No.309
of 2006 and further by the said judgment, the Jharkhand State Consumer
District Redressal Commission, keeping in view the submissions made by the
respondents herein before it, that the respondents herein who were the
appellants before the said Commission, could not trace the relevant papers,
relating to the claim of the writ petitioner. In view of the judgment of the
Jharkhand State Consumer District Redressal Commission dated 30.03.2007 in
F.A. No.309 of 2006, the petitioner has two options; either to comply with the
said judgment by filing the copies of the required papers before the
respondents or if she was aggrieved by the judgment, then she can avail the
(2025:JHHC:21091)
2023:JHHC:44512
statutory remedy and file a revision in terms of Section 21 B (b) of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
6. Having alternative remedies available but not availing the same, this
Court is of the considered view that there is no justifiable reason for this Court
to exercise the power conferred upon it under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India in directing the respondents to pay the insured amount when the facts are
disputed and that too in the absence of relevant documents.
7. Accordingly, this Writ Petition, being without any merit, is dismissed
with liberty to the petitioner to either file the relevant documents before the
respondents or to avail the alternative remedy, as already indicated above.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 22nd of July, 2025
AFR/ Animesh
