IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14677 of 2005 Prabhu Narayan Singh, son of Late Sardar Jyot Singh, resident of Flat No.101, Rajkishori Apartment, Nageshwar Colony, Boring Road, P.S.- Krishnapuri, District-Patna. ….. Petitioner. Versus 1. The New India Assurance Company Limited through its Chairman- cum- Managing Director, Regd. & Head Office, New India Assurance Building, Mahatma Gandhi Road Fort, Bombay-400001. 2. The Regional Manager, the New India Assurance Company Limited, Patna Regional Office, B.S.F.C. Building (6th & 7th Floor), Fraser Road, Patna-800001. 3. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Danapur Branch under Patna Divisional Office-II, Govind Bhawan, 2nd Floor, New Dak Bunglow Road, Patna-800001. 4. The Branch Manager, the New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Branch- Danapur, P.O.-Digha, Patna-800012. 5. Kaushal Kishore, Surveyor, the New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Branch-Danapur, P.O. Digha, Patna-800012. ….. Respondents. ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Amit Kr.Anand, Advocate. For respondent nos.1 to 4 : Mr. Shailendra Kumar, Advocate. ------------ 03/ 20.09.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging order of respondent- the New India Assurance Company Limited dated 27.12.2004 rejecting the insurance claim of the petitioner. It is stated that the said order was passed on false and flimsy grounds which was intimated to the petitioner vide letter of Branch Manager, the New India Assurance Company Limited, Danapur Branch in the district of Patna. A direction is also sought for the respondents-authorities to settle the claim of the petitioner in the light - 2 - of Ombudsman recommendation. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has specifically stated that there was Ombudsman recommendation/ order dated 29.07.2005 (Annexure-6) on the basis of which the petitioner had filed representation before the authorities concerned on 20.10.2005 (Annexure-7), but the authorities are not heeding and hence the petitioner has been compelled to move this court. 4. It transpires that against order dated 27.12.2004, this writ petition had been filed on 30.11.2005 and just before that a representation dated 20.10.2005 (Annexure-7) had been filed by the petitioner before the authorities of the New India Assurance Company Limited, Danapur, Patna. From Annexure-G of the counter affidavit it transpires that on 06.01.2006, the respondents-authorities had decided the said claim in view of the comments/ observation of the surveyor of the policy and the terms and conditions and had closed the claim filed which was also sent to the petitioner. 5. In the said circumstances, the claim raised by the petitioner has already been decided by the authority concerned. Accordingly, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this writ petition to challenge the said order of the authority concerned before an appropriate forum. 6. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid liberty. If the petitioner approaches the said authority within fifteen days from today, his application shall not be rejected due to delay as delay had occurred due to the pendency of this writ petition - 3 - and the said application shall be decided by the authority concerned in accordance with law. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.)