Jogendra Kumar Ray vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. And Others

The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 5th August, 2019 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the Appellant’s OJC No.1274 of 2002.

The prayer in the said writ petition was for a direction to the Respondent No.1-Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. to pay the claim of Rs.7,60,000/- made by the Appellant pursuant to the burglary committed in the business premises of the Appellant on the basis of any insurance policy, which was enclosed with the petition.

The admitted position is that what was insured was the proprietary concern of M/s. Menaka Bhandar and, therefore, the claimant legitimately had to be M/s. Menaka Bhandar, proprietary concern.

Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the Appellant is in fact the Sole Proprietor of M/s. Menaka Bhandar and that the insurance company has throughout been corresponding with him in that capacity.

If that be the position, then the Appellant ought to have taken care to amend the cause title in the writ petition to reflect the Appellant to be M/s. Menaka Bhandar, proprietary concern, through its sole proprietor which is the Appellant. However, the Appellant failed to do so.

In a matter of this nature, it is essential that the correct party is the claimant and it is that party which prefers the writ petition if the claim is not honoured by Respondent No.1-Insurance company. This is not a casual matter where despite defective description of the claimant in the cause title the learned Single Judge should be expected to grant relief to the wrong party.

Consequently, the Court is unable to find any error having been committed by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.

..............................................