1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 23.06.2011 CORAM THE HONOURBLE MR.JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN W.P(MD).No.6213 of 2011 and M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2011 Dr.Radhakrishnan Vidyalaya Matriculation Higher Secondary School, Railway Feeder Road, Sattur, Virudhunagar District, rep.by its Correspondent Dr.Babu.A.Rajendran ... Petitioner Vs The New India Assurance Company Ltd, by its Chairman and Managing Director, 190,Annasalai, Chennai-600 006. ... Respondent Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned renewal notice dated 08.04.2011 in policy numbers 1.72170131100200000275 and 2.72170131100200000343 on the file of the respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to collect tariff not more than the previous year tariff. For petitioner : Mr.P.Natarajan For respondent : No appearance ***** ORDER The petitioner is the Correspondent of the School. He would contend that he has got two buses which is utilised to transport the children. Earlier, the petitioner has insured the vehicles and paid the premium upto May,2011. But in the subsequent year, the respondent Insurance Company has sent a tariff to the petitioner enhancing the premium rates. According to the petitioner, he was not given an opportunity as to the increase of the tariff and it is on the higher side. Therefore, challenging the impugned notice dated 08.04.2011, the Writ Petition is filed. 2. It is rather unfortunate that the petitioner who is the owner of buses having availed insurance policy has challenged the tariff by way of Writ Petition. The Insurance Company has fixed the future premium in accordance with their Rules. It is not known as to how the petitioner can challenge the impugned notice by way of Writ Petition. It is always open for him to continue the policy with the same Insurance Company or any other Insurance Company. The petitioner has nothing to do with that. It is a settled law that contractual matters cannot be https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 entertained in the Writ Petition and that there is no compulsion for the petitioner that he has to continue with the same Insurance Company. It is always open to him to go for any other Insurance Company, if the present insurance premium is not feasible to him. With the above observation, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs. ssm Sd/- Assistant Registrar[P&A] /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To The Chairman and Managing Director, New Indian Assurance Company Ltd, 190,Annasalai, Chennai-600 006. +1 cc to Mr.P.Natarajan, Advocate SR.No.19765. W.P(MD).No.6213 of 2011 Dated:23.06.2011 2P/3C RPB 05.07.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/