IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 21ST MARCH 2011 / 30TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 7150 of 2011(P) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- LICY CHERIAN, W/O.JOHN MATHEW, KANJIRAPPALLY MARBLES, BHARANIKAVU, PORUVAZHY P.O., SASTHAMKOTTA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.G.VIDYA SRI.C.N.SIVANKUTTY RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., 6TH FLOOR, BISHOP JEROME NAGAR, CHINNAKKADA, KOLLAM-1, PIN-691001, REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER. 2. INSURANCE REGULATORY AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, 3RD FLOOR, PARISRAMA BHAVAN, BASHEER BAGH, HYDERABAD, PIN-500004. R2 BY ADV. MR. P. PARAMESWARAN NAIR, ASST. SOLICITOR GENERAL. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) No. 7150 OF 2011 ......................................................................... Dated this the 21st March , 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers: “i. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing the 1st respondent to adjudicate Claim No.400522 submitted by the writ petitioner and to disburse the amounts claimed therein, within a period of two weeks. ii. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing the 2nd respondent to take appropriate action against the 1st respondent for delaying adjudication of Claim No.400522 submitted by the writ petitioner. iii. Any other appropriate writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may please to grant in the circumstances of the case.” 2. Obviously, the petitioner is seeking to adjudicate the rights and liberties arising under a Policy issued by respondent No.1, who is not an authority under the State. The question whether the rights and liberties under a Policy issued even by an Insurance Company in the National Sector had come up for consideration before this Court earlier and as per the judgment dated 22.07.2002 in O.P.No.10435 of 2001, it was held as follows: W.P.(C) No. 7150 of 2011 2 “The petitioner, owner of a vehicle, insured it as per Ext.P1 policy. During the currency of the policy, the vehicle met with an accident. The damage sustained was certified and report was given, but the amount is not disbursed. Thus the respondent is not ownering* the terms of the policy. Therefore there shall be a direction to the respondent to disburse the amount due to the petitioner, he submits. The petitioner wants to enforce contract of indemnity in this Original Petition. Art. 226 of the Constitution is not meant for that purpose. The remedy of the petitioner lies elsewhere. ” (*presumably for the word 'honouring'.) The above verdict is squarely applicable to the case in hand. In the above circumstances, interference is declined and the writ petition is dismissed, however without prejudice to the rights and liberties of the petitioner to pursue the matter before other appropriate forum. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk