- (1.) Ordinarily High Court does not entertain the writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for mere enforcement of a claim under a contract of insurance. But where the wirt petition is filed in a case where an insurer has repudiated the claim,the High Court has to consider the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the dispute raised and the nature of the inquiry necessary to be made for determination of the question raised and other relevant factors before taking a decision whether it should entertain the writ petition or reject it as not maintainable. It has also to be kept in mind that in case an insured or nominee of the deceased insured is refused relief merely on the ground that the claim relates to contractual rights and obligations and he/she is driven to a long drawn litigation in the Civil Court it will cause serious prejudice to the claimant other beneficiaries of the policy. The pros and cons of the matter in the contest of the fact situation of the case should be carefully weighed and appropriate decision should be taken." ( Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Asha Goel (2001) 2 SCC 160 : (AIR 2001 SC 549) . Bearing this principle in mind, I proceed to scan the material on record.
(2.) Contextual facts depict that the respondent No.2 entered into insurance contract with the petitioner Vide Contractors All Risk (CAR) Policy No. 44/96/00008 for a total price of Rs. 1.42 crores for four roads on diffeerent sites in Nadbai Tehsil,District Bharatpur. The petitioner paid premium of Rs. 39,661.00 through cheque No. 378071 dated 27/10/1995 and the respondent No.2 issued a Misc. Provisional Cover Note No 069264/93 dated 27/10/1995 in favour of the petitioner and the period of maintenance was specified as from 27/10/199 5/11/1996 including one year maintenace period. A loss occurred in respect of above referred CAR Policy and accordingly the petitioner lodged a claim vide No. 44/97/00006 with the respondents. The respondents entrusted the job of surveying the actual loss sustained by the petitioner to different surveyors at different times, firstly to Mr. N.K.Jain (Surveyor of Jaipur and secondly to M/s. R.K. Singhal and Company Pvt. Limited (Surveyors of New Delhi). Shri N.K.Jain after completing his survey quantified the loss sustained by the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 29.50 lacs. The second surveyor M/s. R.K.Singhal and Company Private Ltd. New Delhi after surveying and assessing the loss sustained by the petitioner quantified the loss to the tune of Rs. 24.50 lacs. When the respondents did not settle the claim of the petitioner despite many letters of requests, a notice of demand of justice was served and the instant writ petition was filed on 12/02/1999 with the prayer that the respondents be directed to settle the claim as per the survey reports along with interest and compensation.
(3.) Notices were issued to the respondents and the service of the notices was effected on them on 1/04/1999. The reply to the writ petition was thereafter filed by the respondents on 28/06/1999 with the averments that the claim of the petitioner was repudiated by the respondents vide letter dated 31/05/1999. Copy of the said letter was annexed as R/1 with the reply. In view of this the respondents raised preliminary objection in regard to the maintainability of the writ petition.;