Back
2010 Supreme(Pat) 1975
PATNA HIGH COURT
Shiva Kirti Singh and Hemant Kumar Srivastava JJ.
M/s.Messina Beej Pvt. Limited
Versus
New India Assurance Comp. Ltd.
IA No. 167 of 2006
Decided On : AUGUST 27, 2010
Availability of alternative statutory remedy may lead to the dismissal of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Headnote:
Statutory Remedy - Insurance Claim - The court dismissed the writ petition on the ground of availability of alternative statutory remedy before the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority and/or Ombudsman.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant's writ petition was dismissed by the court due to the availability of statutory remedy before the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority and/or Ombudsman.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Ombudsman and the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority had the necessary power to consider the appellant's complaint, and therefore, the writ petition was dismissed.
Issues: Availability of alternative statutory remedy, exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution, and consideration of the writ petition on merits.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that if there is an alternative statutory remedy available to the petitioner, the court may not exercise its power under Article 226 of the Constitution, and the writ petition could be dismissed on that ground.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed by the court.
Shiva Kirti Singh and Hemant Kumar Srivastava JJ.
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel appearing for New India Assurance Company Ltd.
2. The writ court by the order under appeal dated 17.1.2006 dismissed the writ petition preferred by the appellant in the year 2003 in view of statutory remedy available to him before the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority and/or Ombudsman.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant took us through the Redressal of Public Grievances Rules, 1998. We find that Rules 12 and 13 clearly vest necessary power in the Ombudsman to consider a complaint of the nature being raised by the appellant. It is also evident from subsections (2), (3) and (4) of Section 64 UM of the Insurance Act, 1938 that the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority also has power, though discretionary, to consider a grievance against improper or wrong settlement of his claim. We find no merit in the submission advanced on behalf of appellant that if this Court has power under Article 226 of the Constitution, it must exercise that power in all cases even if there be any alternative statutory remedy available to the petitioner.
4. We also find no merit in the submission that because notice was issued to the Insurance Company at the admission stage the writ petition could have been considered only on merits and could not have been dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative statutory remedy. We find no merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed.
