SANTANU CHATTOPADHYAY Vs. DHIMAN PAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these writ applications and the connected applications are being disposed of by this judgement. Before proceeding writ wise, I may note that the writ petitioner, in the writ application WP 4585 (W) of 2015 Santanu Chattopadhyay appeared in person and also for his brother in the other writ [W.P. 25909 (W) of 2015] during several hearings. This court formed a positive opinion that he was unable to conduct the litigation because of a disability, which I do not think appropriate to discuss in this judgement.

(2.) In those circumstances, I had directed the State Legal Services Authority to aid the writ petitioners to conduct these two matters. In obedience to my order the State Legal Services Authority duly engaged a learned lawyer to represent the writ petitioners. For some unavoidable reasons, on the last day of hearing of this matter the learned lawyer could not be present in this court. This court had to close the hearing upon hearing Mr. Santanu Chattopadhyay in person, going through the records and hearing learned Counsel for the respondents.

(3.) The writ petitioner had obtained a policy from New India Assurance Co. Ltd. on or about 17th February, 2014 upto 16th February, 2015 insuring his residential house at Village and P.O.-Bergoom, P.S.-Habra, District-North 24 Parganas, West Bengal against inter alia the risk of fire and malicious act. Allegedly on 18th October, 2014 some local miscreants entered the house of the writ petitioner and caused extensive damage. This was reported by the writ petitioner to the insurance company. The petitioner lodged a claim with the insurer for Rs. 2,06,000/-.