24.07.2026 rpan/73 WPA 7563 of 2020 + IA No.: CAN 1 of 2020 K.P.S. Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. & Another - Versus - National Insurance Co. & Others Mr. Subhasis Sengupta, Mr. Rittick Chowdhury, Mr. Ramji Munsi, Mr. Soham Saha … for the Petitioners. Mr. Rajesh Singh … for the Respondents. Fundamentally, the present writ petition has been filed challenging the decision of the respondent Insurance Company repudiating the petitioner's insurance claim on the ground that "the reported loss was not due to any accidental peril and not admissible as per the terms and conditions of the issued policy," as communicated in the repudiation letter dated 10th July, 2020. In addition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction upon the concerned respondents to reconsider the petitioner's insurance claim afresh in accordance with law. Mr. Sengupta, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submits that the petitioners' company had obtained an insurance policy from the respondent Insurance Company to secure indemnification against losses arising out of the contingencies covered under the policy. He further submits that the petitioners' company suffered a loss covered by the policy and, immediately thereafter, lodged its claim with the insurer seeking indemnification and settlement of the claim. However, the concerned respondents repudiated the petitioners' claim by issuing a cryptic repudiation letter, as would be evident from the communication dated 10th July, 2020. Mr. Sengupta submits that the repudiation letter does not assign any reason whatsoever for rejecting the petitioners' insurance claim. He contends that the passing of a cryptic order, without assigning any reasons in support thereof, is, by itself, violative of the principles of natural justice. He, therefore, submits that the concerned authority ought to be directed to pass a reasoned order in support of its decision repudiating the petitioners' claim. In rebuttal, Mr. Singh, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents, submits that the petitioners have an efficacious alternative remedy and, therefore, ought to avail themselves of the same instead of invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court. He, however, fairly submits that if this Court is inclined to remit the matter to the respondent authority with a direction to communicate the grounds for repudiation of the petitioners' insurance claim, the respondents have no objection thereto. In view of the aforesaid submission made on behalf of the respondents, the writ petition, along with the connected application, is disposed of by directing the concerned respondents to communicate to the petitioners the ground or grounds on which their insurance claim was repudiated. Such ground or grounds shall be communicated within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that this Court has not entered into the merits of the issues raised in the present writ petition and all rights and contentions of the parties are kept open. 2 Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties, upon compliance of all requisite formalities. (Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.) 3