WP(C) 5533/2003 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY Heard Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, learned Sr. counsel for the petitioners. None appears for the respondents though the names of the learned counsel appearing fo r them are reflected. The petitioners, who entered into a contract of insurance with the respo ndent No.1 on 30.11.2001 in respect of the vehicle bearing Registration No.AMM-1 283 for which the Policy No.130780/31/02/11/01882 /01 has been issued by the res pondent No.1, by the present petition have prayed for a direction to the respond ent insurance company to settle the claim lodged by the petitioners under the te rms of the contract entered into between the parties, for the damages caused to the vehicle. According to the petitioners though they are entitled to the amount as claimed by them under the contract of insurance, the same has not been paid by the respondent insurance company on the ground of non-production of the drivi ng licence of the driver D. Tappa, who in fact was not driving the vehicle and w as not the driver engaged by the petitioners. According to the petitioners, they had engaged one Pradip Dey as driver and who driven the vehicle at the relevant point of time and against whom a criminal proceeding being G.R. Case No.1830/20 01 has been registered for the said accident. Mr. Sahewalla, learned Sr. counsel for the petitioners referring to such contention of the petitioners has submitted that since the vehicle was driven b y Pradip Dey and not by D. Tappa, there is no question of production of driving licence in respect of D. Tappa as claimed by the respondents. Mr. Sahewalla, the refore, submits that necessary directions may be issued to the respondent author ities to settle the claim without insisting production of the copy of the drivin g licence of D. Tappa. Though none of the learned counsel engaged by the respondents have appea red today to argue the case, it appears from the affidavit-in-opposition filed b y the respondents that according to them on the fateful date the vehicle was dri ven by D. Tappa and not by Pradip Dey and unless the copy of the driving licence of D. Tappa is produced there is no question of settlement of claim made by the petitioners, in view of the conditions in the contract of insurance between the parties. In the backdrop of such contentions, this Court vide order dated 15.12.2 009 directed the petitioners to produce the final order or any order passed in G .R. Case No.1380/2001, which proceeding, according to the petitioners, was regis tered against Shri Pradip Dey for rash and negligent driving of the vehicle on 3 0.11.2001 for which the petitioners lodged the claim for damages/compensation wi th the respondents under the contract of insurance. The learned Sr. counsel on i nstruction has submitted that despite the effort made the certified copies of th e orders passed in the said G.R. case could not be obtained and produced before this Court as the petitioners have informed him that the said case record is mis sing. The dispute as it appears from the pleadings of the parties is who was d riving the vehicle at the time of accident, i.e. by Sri Pradip Dey or by D. Tapp a. According to the insurance company it was D. Tappa and according to the petit ioners it was Pradip Dey, against whom a criminal proceeding has been registered . The insurance company refused to settle the claim because of non-production of driving licence of D. Tappa though the petitioners are ready and willing to pro duce the driving licence of Shri Pradip Dey. Unless the said disputed question o f fact is ascertained, no direction can be issued by this Court directing the in surance company to settle the claim made by the petitioners. Such disputed quest ion of fact cannot conveniently be gone into in the present writ proceeding as i t requires examination of the documents and also may require recording the state ment of the parties, which in my view can be done by the Ombudsman appointed und er the provisions of the Insurance Act. In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioners to approach the Ombudsman appointed under the Insurance Act ventilating their grievances and if such an approach is made, the same shall def initely be decided in accordance with law and with due notice to the insurance c ompany. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.