08.09.2026 Item No. 11 Court No.22. S. De 266462 WPA 26659 of 2025 Manoar Hossain. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Robiul Islam, Sk. Jayed Hossain, Mr. Raja Mondal, Mr. M. Rahman, …for the petitioner. Mr. Rajesh Singh, Mr. Aniruddha Singh, …for the respondent no.6. Mr. Indrajeet Dasgupta, Mr. Samrat Dey Paul, …for the State. 1. The petitioner is represented. 2. The respondent nos. 1 to 5 are represented. 3. The respondent no.6 is also represented. 4. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition praying for, inter alia, a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to entrust the investigation of a FIR, being Chapra Police Station Case No.311 of 2025, to an independent and impartial agency, not connected with the local police station, to ensure a fair and transparent investigation with immediate effect. 5. During the course of submissions, learned advocate representing the petitioner has not made any submission in respect of this prayer. Accordingly, such prayer is rejected. 2 6. Another prayer has been made in the writ petition, namely, a writ of mandamus to be issued commanding the respondent/insurance company to reconsider and process the petitioner’s insurance claim in accordance with law, without relying solely on unverified FIR allegations. It is primarily this prayer which the petitioner is concerned with. 7. In a nutshell, the petitioner’s case is that he is the owner of a car and while such car was being driven by his driver on March 14, 2025, the said vehicle unfortunately met with an accident resulting in it getting substantially damaged. 8. The learned advocate representing the petitioner submits that the petitioner immediately informed the concerned authorities and the insurance company and lodged a claim in accordance with the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. 9. It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that a person, who was not an eye-witness, lodged the aforesaid FIR before the Chapra Police Station and reported that the driver of the said vehicle was in a drunken condition and that the accident was caused by rash and negligent driving. The petitioner submits that the said driver was not under the influence of alcohol and there is no medical evidence to susbstantiate such allegation. 3 The petitioner’s claim before the insurance company was rejected by a letter dated August 22, 2025 on the basis that the insurance company was not liable to make any payment in respect of any accidental loss or damage suffered whilst the insured or any person driving the vehicle with the knowledge and consent of the insured is under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs. 10. The petitioner is aggrieved by such repudiation and, accordingly, prays for orders in terms of his aforesaid prayer in the writ petition. 11. Learned advocate representing the State respondents has handed over a report prepared by the Inspector-in-Charge, Chapra Police Station. The same is taken on record. A copy of this report has been handed over to the learned advocate representing the petitioner as well as the learned advocate representing the respondent no.6. 12. From a perusal of this report, it appears that the said accident resulted in seven people losing their lives and four other people sustaining injuries. It also appears that upon completion of the investigation, a prima facie case was found established against accused Surjo Mondal under Sections 281/106/125(b)/132/105 BNS and Sections 184/185 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Final form as charge sheet was submitted against 4 him vide Chapra PS GDE No.-494/2025, Date:10.05.2025 u/s-281/106/125(b)/132/105 BNS and Sections 184/185 of the Motor Vehicles Act, keeping provision for submission of a supplementary report after receipt of the pending FSL report. 13. The learned advocate representing the private respondent no.6, at the outset, submits that this writ petition is not maintainable before this Court on the ground that the petitioner has various alternative remedies, including approaching the insurance Ombudsman or approaching a Consumer Forum by filing a civil suit. He further submits that the repudiation of the claim lodged by the petitioner before the insurance company was done in accordance with law. He hands over a copy of the insurance policy and relies on Clause 2 of such policy under the heading “LOSS OF OR DAMAGE TO THE VEHICLE INSURED-OWN DAMAGE SECTION” which reads as follows : “2. The company shall not be liable to make any payment in respect of : (a) Consequential loss, depreciation, wear and tear, mechanical or electrical breakdown, failures or breakages; 5 (b) Damage to tyres and tubes unless the vehicle is damaged at the same time in which case the liability of the Company shall be limited to 50% of the cost of replacement. And (c) Any accidental loss or damage suffered whilst the Insured or any person driving the vehicle with the knowledge and consent of the insured is under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs.” 14. He further submits that it will be evident from a copy of the FIR which has been annexed to the writ petition that the petitioner’s driver was charged with offences under Sections 184 and 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1954, which deals with dangerous driving and drunken driving. He also says that it will be evident from the said FIR that the petitioner’s driver was alleged to be rashly and negligently driving in drunken condition which resulted in the death of seven people. A copy of the complaint filed before the Chapra Police Station also states the same. He, thus, prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 15. The judgments relied upon by the learned advocate representing the respondent no.6 in support of his submissions, are as follows : 1. Judgment dated April 7, 2025 passed by this Court in WPA 30230 of 2024 (Saroj 6 Kumar Bhunia Vs. The Chief Manager, TATA AIG General Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors.) 2. Judgment dated November 25, 2022 passed by this Court in APOT 81 of 2022 arising out of WPO 556 of 2021 (Budge Budge Refineries Ltd. Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr.) 16. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and materials-on-record. I am of the view that there has been no infraction of law by the insurance company in repudiating the claim of the petitioner by a letter dated August 22, 2025. The terms and conditions of the contract between the petitioner and the insurance company clearly states that in case the vehicle owner suffered some damage to his vehicle on account of the driver of such vehicle at such point of time under the influence of intoxicating liquor, then the insurance company will not be liable. The accident which has resulted in the damage caused to the petitioner’s car was a serious and grave one. Seven people have died and four other people have been injured. It has also been stated in the complaint letter that empty bottles of liquor were found in the said car at the time of the accident. In such circumstances, the petitioner 7 cannot, at this juncture, claim that the driver of the said vehicle was not in a drunken condition at the point of time of occurrence of the accident. In any event, even if the petitioner contends that the said driver was not in a drunken condition, such issue would be a disputed question of fact. This Court cannot go into the same in its writ jurisdiction. 17. I am further of the view that the petitioner has other alternative remedies available to him which he has not availed till date. In view of such alternative remedies being available to the petitioner, I find that this writ petition is not maintainable on this ground as well. 18. Accordingly, WPA 26659 of 2025 is dismissed. 19. There will be no order as to costs. 20. Since no affidavit-in-opposition has been called for, the allegations made in the writ petition are deemed not to have been admitted by the respondents. 21. All parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. 8 22. Urgent Photostat certified copy of the order, if applied for, be given to thev parties upon compliance with the requisite formalities. (Rishad Medora, J.)