Writ petitions related to insurance claims involving factual disputes are not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution, mandating civil adjudication instead.

ORDER :

1. The issue that arises for consideration in all these Writ Petitions is with regard to the rejection of claim made by the petitioner under the Insurance scheme floated by the respondents. Hence, with consent of the learned counsels appearing on either side, Writ Petitions were all taken together and disposed of by this common order.

2. Heard Mr.S.R.Rajagopal, learned Senior counsel appearing for Mr.R.S.Pandiyaraj, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Krishna Srinivasan, learned counsel appearing for Mr.S.Ramasubramaniam & Associates, learned counsel for the respondents.

3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a firm engaged in 100% export oriented business in exporting granites to various countries. The petitioner Company is also recognised by the Government of India in that aspects. He would submit that the respondent provided export credit insurance facilities to the exporters and banks in India in order to encourage and facilitate the globalization of India and to assist the Indian Exporters in managing the creditors by providing timely worthiness of buyers and bankers and the said Insurance policy is to protect the Indian exporters against unforeseen losses which may arise due to the failure on the buyer/bank in honouring their commitments to the exporter. The first respondent had awarded various insurance products. The first respondent is basically an export promotion organisation promoted by the Government of India and managed by a Board of Directors comprising the representatives of the Government, RBI, Banking Insurance and exporting communities. The premium payable under the Insurance policy was based upon the export turn over of the policy holder for a year. The standard turnover policy covers the eligible shipments by the petitioner. The petitioner firm had also submitted a proposal for export turnover policy for shipments during the period 01.02.2012 to 31.12.2013 and on satisfaction of the export turnover policy, the petitioner was benefited with a policy under the said scheme. The petitioner had exported granites to three companies under three difference policies. During the currency of the business and the aforesaid policies, the State Government had initiated various proceedings including criminal proceedings under the Mines and Minerals Act against the petitioner and in the course of the same, the factory and mines premises of the petitioner were sealed and all the documents subject to the entire business transactions were seized and taken into custody by the Investigating Officer. The efforts taken by the petitioner to recover the dues from the companies to which the Export was made remained unfruitful. The amounts due to be received from the overseas buyer was covered under the policy and the remained unpaid and hence, the petitioner had sought invocation of the Insurance cover and had lodged a claim before the third respondent in terms and conditions of the export turnover policy for realization of the loss suffered by the petitioner.

4. He would submit that it is undisputed that the petitioner had exported the goods and the same had been taken delivery by the respective overseas companies and therefore, the petitioner had fulfilled all the terms and conditions of the policy and is entitled to be indemnified for the loss that it had suffered. By communication dated 20.09.2013, the third respondent herein had pointed out certain discrepancies and sou