1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY : NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Civil Application No. 8007/2007 IN Writ Petition No. 5923/2006 [ I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. ] . Vs . [ Smt. Nirmalabai wd/o Vishnu Pawar & others ] ..................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders or directions and Registrar's orders. ..................................................................................................................... CORAM : A. P. LAVANDE AND R. V. MORE , JJ. DATED : 15/02/2008. 1. Heard Mr. Sachin Jaiswal, learned counsel for applicant, Mr. R.P.Joshi, learned counsel for respondent no.1 and Mrs. K.Joshi, learned A.G.P. for respondent Nos.2 and 3. 2. By this application, the applicant who is the respondent no.2 in Writ Petition No.5923/06 seeks review of Judgment and Order dated 17/08/2007 allowing the petition filed by respondent no.1 by which communication dated 23/12/2005 addressed by respondent no.2 to the petitioner is quashed and set aside and respondent no.2 is directed to pay compensation of Rs.1 lac and also pay costs of Rs. 15,000/- to the respondent no.1 within a period of four 2 weeks from the date of receipt of writ from this Court. 3. The respondent no.1 filed above petition challenging the communication dated 23/12/2005 addressed to her by the present applicant rejecting her claim for compensation of an amount of Rs.1 lac as per Insurance Coverage. The applicant claimed the amount of Rs.1 lac on account of death of her husband Vishnu Pawar, an agriculturist who died in vehicular accident on 17/05/2005 leaving behind the respondent no.1 and five children. She claimed the said amount under a scheme framed by the Government of Maharashtra known as “Shetkari Vyaktigat Apghat Bima Yojna” which was implemented during the year 2005-2006 in the State of Maharashtra through the present applicant. The said scheme was extended to all registered farmers in the age group between 12 – 70 years. 4. By the Judgment and Order dated 17/08/2007, this court held that the action of the present applicant in refusing the claim of the respondent no.1 to pay the compensation was illegal and accordingly, the petition was allowed. 5. The applicant seeks review of the Judgment on the ground that the applicant was not heard inasmuch as the Advocate for the applicant could not remain present on the date of hearing i.e. on 09/08/2007 for justifiable reasons. 6. Since the counsel for the applicant was not heard in 3 the writ petition, we deem it appropriate to admit the review application and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the application is taken up for hearing forthwith and being disposed of finally. 7. In support of the application, Mr.Jaiswal has urged the following two grounds. i) The respondent no.1 had effective alternate remedy of filing proceedings before the District Consumer Forum and therefore, the writ petition was not maintainable. ii) Deceased Vishnu Pawar had exposed himself to needless peril by travelling in a rickshaw alongwith 7 – 8 passengers and therefore, “exclusion” clause was attracted and consequently, the applicant is not liable to pay any compensation to the respondent no.1. 8. Mr.R.P.Joshi, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.1 submitted that no case has been made out by the applicant for review of impugned Judgment and Order. 9. Insofar as first ground urged in support of the review application is concerned, it is well settled that the fact that the party has alternate remedy by itself does not take away the powers of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to entertain the petition. In the present case, the respondent no.1 seeks enforcement of scheme formulated by the State of 4 Maharashtra which is implemented through the applicant. It is the stand of the State of Maharashtra that the respondent no.1 who is a poor widow is entitled to receive compensation under the said scheme. 10. Considering these facts and circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that this is a fit case in which this court should exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and grant relief to the petitioner. Therefore, in our opinion, the first ground of review has no merit and deserves to be rejected. 11. Insofar as applicability of “exclusion” clause is concerned, the same has been dealt with in para 12 of the Judgment and the finding has been recorded against the applicant. In para 12 of the Judgment, it has been held that the exclusion clause is not attracted in the present case. Therefore, we find no error apparent on the face of record. Therefore, the second ground also fails. 12. For the aforesaid reasons, we find no merit in the present application and the same is, therefore, dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE VMC