IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH JUNE 2009 / 20TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 23018 of 2007(M) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- BABY MATHEW, CHAIRMAN, SOMA HOUSE BOATS PVT. LTD., CHOWARA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. MR.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR OF INSURANCE, HOUSING BOARD BUILDING, 6TH FLOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, 3RD FLOOR, C.W.C. BUILDING, L.M.S. COMPOUND, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.V. TEK CHAND R2 BY ADV. MR.N.S.MOHAMMED USMAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/06/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 23018/2007-M APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE LICENCE ISSUED IN SEPTEMBER 2000 BY THE CANAL OFFICER, KODUNGALLOOR TO THE BOAT OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE POLICY NO.KSID/MH/2012/2001 DATED 02/05/2001 EVIDENCING THE INSURANCE COVERAGE OF THE PETITIONER'S BOAT. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE REPORT NO.C.201(WR)/2595 DATD 14/06/2002 OF THE METEROLOGIST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE SURVEY REPORT DATED 13/06/2003 FILED BY SRI.H. HARIKUMAR, SURVEYOR AND LOSS ASSESSOR BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE LETTER NO.KSID/GI 13/M3/15610/01 DATED 15/12/2004 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 25/01/2005 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 17/09/2004 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 26/06/2007 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs. S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ======================== W.P.(C). No.23018 OF 2007-M ======================== Dated 10th June 2009 Judgment The petitioner is a businessman, who hires out house- boats to tourists. His boat Ambal Soma was insured with the 1st respondent during the period from 20.09.1999 to 19.09.2000. That boat met with an accident on 13.05.2000. According to the petitioner, he is entitled to Rs.2,94,750/- as insurance money for the damages caused to the boat on account of the accident. The petitioner's grievance is that despite repeated requests in that regard, the 1st respondent is not finalising the insurance claim. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition, seeking the following reliefs : “i) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to settle the claim for Rs.2,94,750/- towards insurance coverage payable to the petitioner forthwith. WPC 23018/07 2 ii) Please to appoint an expert advocate commission to assess the damages suffered by the petitioner on account of the accident of his house boat. iii) grant such other reliefs as this Honourable Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of this case including the cost of this Writ Petition.” 2. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 1st respondent, where the contention taken is that the delay in finalising the insurance claim is only on account of the fact that the petitioner has not provided the clarifications requested for and the documents in support of his claim. 3. I am of the opinion that whether the petitioner has responded to the request for clarification or not, nothing prevents the 1st respondent from finalising the insurance claim, based on the documents already available. Therefore, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the following directions : If the petitioner so wishes, he may produce the necessary clarifications and documents requested for WPC 23018/07 3 by the 1st respondent within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. If the petitioner has got a case that such clarifications and documents have already been furnished, he may address a letter to the 1st respondent, taking that stand. On receipt of the same, the 1st respondent shall take a final decision on the insurance claim preferred by the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Needless to say, if the order passed on the claim by the 1st respondent is adverse to the petitioner, it will be open to him to challenge the same appropriately. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE sta WPC 23018/07 4 WPC 23018/07 5