Sanjay Rai vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:89133
1 WP-7082-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR
rd
ON THE 3 OF NOVEMBER, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 7082 of 2016
CNR No.: MPHC010202042016
SANJAY RAI
Versus
HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Vineet Mishra - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Takmeel Nasir - Advocate for the respondents 1 and 2.
Shri Prakhar Awasthi - Advocate for the respondent No.4.
ORDER
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed
being aggrieved of inaction on the part of the respondents regarding
facilitating claim of insurance to the petitioner for injuries sustained by his
wife in a fire accident.
The petitioner has prayed for the following relief:
"i. That, the Hon'ble Court makes graciously be pleased to direct the
respondent oil company to provide the insurance claim of consumer
according to the guide line and also interest of amount.
ii. Any other relief that the Hon'ble Court made deemed fit may also be
granted.
iii The Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct respondent No.4
Insurance Co. to pay insurance claim to the petitioner's wife as per
Annexure R/3 policy dated 04.07/2015 in the interest of justice ."
2. The exposition of the facts giving rise to filing of this petition, in
brief, are as under:
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KOUSHALENDRA
SHARAN SHUKLA
Signing time: 06-11-2026
18:52:16

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:89133
2 WP-7082-2016
(A) The respondent No.2 provided LPG gas connection to the
petitioner on 2/9/2014. The wife of the petitioner was cooking at her
home on 3/7/2015. There was leakage from the gas pipe and regulator
provided by the respondent No.2. The wife of the petitioner sustained
burn injury in fire accident caused due to leakage of LPG from the
regulator.
(B) The petitioner had given written intimation on 2/9/2015
(Annexure P-3) to the respondent No.3. The petitioner sent a legal
notice on 17/10/2015 (Annexure P-4) to the local dealer of LPG.
Despite receipt of the notice, no action is taken by the respondents to
grant damages and compensation. Therefore, the petitioner requests that
respondent No.4 insurance company be directed to pay insurance claim
for the injuries sustained by the wife of the petitioner as per policy
dated 4/7/2015.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in addition to the facts and grounds
mentioned in the petition, submits that according to the policy guidelines of
supplier M/s HPCL (Annexure P-7) provides that in the event of an
accident, the consumer be compensated through insurance company and the
distributor shall offer assistance to the consumer in completing the
formalities for claim of insurance. Despite seeking assistance by the
petitioner, the respondents have not assisted the petitioner in claiming
insurance till date. Therefore, the petitioner be adequately compensated.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submit that that
intimation filed by the petitioner was duly enquired into. The inquiry report
reveals that the incident was doubtful as no FIR was registered and
intimation of the incident was given after an inordinate delay of three
months. Therefore, no further action was taken in the matter. Learned
counsel also submits that the petitioner did not avail equally efficacious relief
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KOUSHALENDRA
SHARAN SHUKLA
Signing time: 06-11-2026
18:52:16

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:89133
3 WP-7082-2016
by filing an application before the Consumer Redressal Forum or the Civil

Court for compensation of loss, if any, suffered by him due to any act or
fault on the part of the respondents. Therefore, the present petition is not
maintainable.
5. Heard both the parties and perused the record.
6. The petitioner has claimed that his wife sustained burn injuries due to
leakage of LPG from regulator and gas pipe supplied by the HPCL. Whether
there was fault on regulator or the gas pipe supplied by the distributor M/s
HPCL; whether the fire accident had actually occurred due to faulty
equipment supplied by the respondent; and whether the wife of the applicant
had actually sustained injuries in the fire accident and what was the nature
and extent of her injuries, are the questions of fact requiring the evidence
and verification of the documents. This Court while exercising the writ
jurisdiction cannot indulge into a fact-finding inquiry requiring evidence.
7. The Supreme Court in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India
versus Asha Goel (Smt.) reported in (2001) 2 SCC 160 observed in
paragraph 11 as follows:
"11. The position that emerges from the discussions in the decided cases is
that ordinarily the High Court should not entertain a writ petition filed
under Article 226 of the Constitution for mere enforcement of a claim
under a contract of insurance. Where an insurer has repudiated the claim,
in case such a writ petition is filed, the High Court has to consider the
facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the dispute raised and the
nature of the inquiry necessary to be made for determination of the
questions raised and other relevant factors before taking a decision
whether it should entertain the writ petition or reject it as not
maintainable. It has also to be kept in mind that in case an insured or
nominee of the deceased insured is refused relief merely on the ground
that the claim relates to contractual rights and obligations and he/she is
driven to a long-drawn litigation in the civil court it will cause serious
prejudice to the claimant/other beneficiaries of the policy. The pros and
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KOUSHALENDRA
SHARAN SHUKLA
Signing time: 06-11-2026
18:52:16

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:89133
4 WP-7082-2016
cons of the matter in the context of the fact-situation of the case should be
carefully weighed and appropriate decision should be taken. In a case
where claim by an insured or a nominee is repudiated raising a serious
dispute and the Court finds the dispute to be a bona fide one which
requires oral and documentary evidence for its determination then the
appropriate remedy is a civil suit and not a writ petition under Article 226
of the Constitution. Similarly, where a plea of fraud is pleaded by the
insurer and on examination is found prima facie to have merit and oral and
documentary evidence may become necessary for determination of the
issue raised, then a writ petition is not an appropriate remedy ."

8. Further, the Supreme Court in the case of Chairman, Grid Corporation
of Orissa Chairman, (GRIDCO) Ltd and Others versus Sukamani Das (Smt.)
and Another (1999) 7 SCC 298 while dealing with the question regarding
exercise of writ jurisdiction on a petition seeking compensation for death of a
person because of electrocution, which is allegedly caused due to negligence
of the authorities observed as under:
"6. In our opinion, the High Court committed an error in entertaining the
writ petitions even though they were not fit cases for exercising power
under Article 226 of the Constitution. The High Court went wrong in
proceeding on the basis that as the deaths had taken place because of
electrocution as a result of the deceased coming into contact with snapped
live wires of the electric transmission lines of the appellants, that
“admittedly/prima facie amounted to negligence on the part of the
appellants”. The High Court failed to appreciate that all these cases were
actions in tort and negligence was required to be established firstly by the
claimants. The mere fact that the wire of the electric transmission line
belonging to Appellant 1 had snapped and the deceased had come in
contact with it and had died was not by itself sufficient for awarding
compensation. It also required to be examined whether the wire had
snapped as a result of any negligence of the appellants and under which
circumstances the deceased had come in contact with the wire. In view of
the specific defences raised by the appellants in each of these cases they
deserved an opportunity to prove that proper care and precautions were
taken in maintaining the transmission lines and yet the wires had snapped
because of circumstances beyond their control or unauthorised intervention
of third parties or that the deceased had not died in the manner stated by
the petitioners. These questions could not have been decided properly on
the basis of affidavits only. It is the settled legal position that where
disputed questions of facts are involved a petition under Article 226 of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KOUSHALENDRA
SHARAN SHUKLA
Signing time: 06-11-2026
18:52:16

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:89133
5 WP-7082-2016
Constitution is not a proper remedy. The High Court has not and could not
have held that the disputes in these cases were raised for the sake of
raising them and that there was no substance therein. The High Court
should have directed the writ petitioners to approach the civil court as it
was done in OJC No. 5229 of 1995
."

9. In the case of MP Power Management Company Limited versus SKY
Power Southeast Solar India Power Limited and Others, reported in (2023) 2
SCC 703 in paragraph 82.7 the Supreme Court has held as under:
82.7. The existence of an alternate remedy, is, undoubtedly, a matter to be
borne in mind in declining relief in a writ petition in a contractual matter.
Again, the question as to whether the writ petitioner must be told off the
gates, would depend upon the nature of the claim and relief sought by the
petitioner, the questions, which would have to be decided, and, most
importantly, whether there are disputed questions of fact, resolution of
which is necessary, as an indispensable prelude to the grant of the relief
sought. Undoubtedly, while there is no prohibition, in the writ court even
deciding disputed questions of fact, particularly when the dispute
surrounds demystifying of documents only, the Court may relegate the
party to the remedy by way of a civil suit."
10. In view of the afore stated proposition of law, it is clear that when
disputed questions of facts are involved in the case, High Court should not
exercise writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In
the present case, the relevant relief for grant of compensation or claim sought
by the petitioner, is dependent upon determination of the aforestated disputed
questions of facts, which cannot be adjudicated merely on the basis of
pleadings and affidavits of the parties. It would not be appropriate for this
Court to determine the questions of fact in the present writ petition.
11. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed.
(SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR)
JUDGE
ks
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KOUSHALENDRA
SHARAN SHUKLA
Signing time: 06-11-2026
18:52:16

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:89133
6 WP-7082-2016


Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KOUSHALENDRA
SHARAN SHUKLA
Signing time: 06-11-2026
18:52:16