IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 19TH OCTOBER 2010 / 27TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 27188 of 2010(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------- M.P.KUNHAHAMMEDKUTTY, S/O.MUHAMMED KUNHI (LATE), AGED 48 YEARS, MARUTHI ROAD, MELAKOM, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, BRANCH OFFICE, NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT PIN- 679329. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, AREACODE POLICE STATION,MALAPPURAM DIST. PIN-673639. 3. THE ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR, ELECTRICAL INSPECTORATE, UPHILL, MALAPPURAM-676505 . GOVT.PLEADER SRI.DILEEP MOHAN SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, KSEB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.27188/10 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE INSURANCE POLICY IN RESPECT OF SIYO MOVIES OWNED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R. IN CRIME NO.383/2009 OF THE AREACODE POLICE STATION DT 28.11.2009. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE CLAIM FORM SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIOENR TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT DT 3.12.2009. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE FIRE REPORT ISSUED BY THE STATION OFFICER, FIRE STATION, MALAPPURAM. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 11.8.2010. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 4.8.2010 BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 27188 OF 2010 (W) ===================== Dated this the 19th day of October, 2010 J U D G M E N T Though notice has been served, there is no appearance on behalf of the 1st respondent. 2. In this writ petition, petitioner claims that one of his movie theatre by name “Siyo Movies” near Areacode in Malappuram District was gutted in fire on 28/11/2009. It is stated that the theatre was insured with the 1st respondent and that the petitioner has made Ext.P3 claim form with the 1st respondent for settling his insurance claim. It is stated that despite lapse of almost one year, the claim is not finalised and that led the petitioner to file this writ petition. In this writ petition, since all that the petitioner seeks is a direction to the 1st respondent to finalise Ext.P3 claim, without expressing anything on the merits of the claim raised, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to finalise Ext.P3. This the 1st respondent shall do at any rate within 8 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp