Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010082062023 2025:GAU-AS:3937 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2166/2023 MD. HERAJ ALI S/O- LATE SAYEDUR RAHMAN, R/O- WARD NO. 10, POWER HOUSE, RANGIA TOWN, P.O. RANGIA- 781354, P.S.- RANGIA, DIST.- KAMRUP, ASSAM. VERSUS THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND 2 ORS. REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT BLOCK-4, PLATE-A, NBCC OFFICE COMPLEX, KIDWAI NAGAR EAST, NEW DELHI- 110023. 2:THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED BUSINESS UNIT NO. 3 ORIENTAL HOUSE 3RD FLOOR 1 J TATA ROAD CHURCHGATE MUMBAI- 400020. 3:THE REGIONAL MANAGER ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED ULUBARI GUWAHATI- 781007 Page No.# 2/3 DIST.- KAMRUP(M) ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. D K SHARMA, MR B PATHAK Advocate for the Respondent : MR S DUTTA, MR. S DUTTA,MR S DUTTA BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY ORDER 02-04-2025 1. Heard Mr. B.Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. Dutta, learned Standing counsel, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. for all the respondents. 2. The challenge made in this writ petition is against the letter dated 19.04.2022 issued by the Senior Divisional Manager of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., whereby the insurance claim for the death of son of the petitioner under Master Policy No. 111200/48/2021/1561 was rejected for failure of submission of the Succession Certificate. 3. The case of the petitioner is that his son, Alfred Mispa had passed away in a motor vehicle accident on 31.01.2021 while he was riding his Scooty and was hit by a truck near Six Mile, Guwahati. Accordingly, the petitioner made a claim under the aforesaid Master Policy. The fact remains that the insurance company asked for Succession Certificate to the petitioner by its communication dated 25.01.2022. However, said Succession Certificate was obtained by the petitioner from the competent Court only on 02.08.2022. In the meantime, by the impugned communication dated 19.04.2022, the claim Page No.# 3/3 of the petitioner was closed for want of the Succession Certificate. 4. Mr. Dutta, learned counsel for the respondents, in his usual fairness, submitted that the petitioner may be granted a chance to submit his Succession Certificate and thereafter, the respondents shall decide the claim of the petitioner inasmuch as delay was not on the part of the petitioner rather it took some time in the Court. 5. This Court appreciates such fair submission made by the learned counsel for the respondents and at the same time, is also of the opinion that the petitioner should not be blamed for delay in submission of the Succession Certificate inasmuch as it brings to a judicial notice that for obtaining Succession Certificate from the Court, it takes some time. 6. Be that as it may, this writ petition stands allowed by interfering with the impugned communication dated 19.04.2022 and the matter is relegated to the Insurance Company to take a fresh decision in this regard. 7. However, it is made clear that this Court has not made any comment on the merit of the claim of the petitioner as well as the respondent insurance company. 8. Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant