1 2026:CGHC:23730 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3177 of 2022 Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company Limited, Office at Rama Trade Center, First Floor, Opposite Rajiv Plaza, Near Old Bus Stand Bilaspur (C.G.), Through its Employee Vishal Soni, Son of Vijay Kumar Soni, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Ashirwad Velly, R-3, 120, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus Deonis Kujur S/o Pauluas Kujur, Aged About 50 Years C/o Sudhir Ekka, Near Chandu Garage Godhanpur, Ambikapur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title downloaded from CIS Periphery) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rudranath Mukherjee, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Govind Prasad Dewangan, Advocate SB: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board SHYNA AJAY Digitally signed by SHYNA AJAY Date: 2026.06.17 11:13:09 +0530 2 15/06/2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs : 10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire records and after perusing the entire record, be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 06- 05-2022 (Annexure P-1). 10.2 Any appropriate writ, direction or order may also kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner/Insurance Company submits that the petitioner is aggrieved by the award/order dated 6.5.2022 passed by the Insurance Ombudsman, State of M.P. & C.G., whereby the complaint filed by the complainant/respondent was allowed and the Insurance Company was directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,49,755/- plus interest @ 2% over bank rate from the date of receipt of claim by the petitioner/Insurance Company to the date of settlement to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of the said award. He submits that the Ombudsman has erred in law while not considering the aspect that though the petitioner has made a complaint that his vehicle (auto) bearing registration No.CG-15-DQ-7228 was stolen on 19.10.2020, but the FIR was lodged on the next day, thereby casting doubt on the exact date of the incident. He further submits that the respondent/complainant has provided 3 keys, however, none of 3 them matched the lock of the subject vehicle. Hence, it cannot be forensically proved that the vehicle of the complainant was securely locked when it was stolen. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents annexed with the petition carefully. 4. Manifestly, the petitioner cannot succeed on the above grounds alone. A minor delay in lodging the FIR on the next day and the fact that the keys provided by the complainant/ respondent did not match according to the Forensic Science Laboratory Report, are insufficient to disturb the impugned award/order when the complainant has set out a categoric case of theft and the Insurance Company failed to prove otherwise before the Insurance Ombudsman. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that a well-reasoned order has been passed by the concerned authority, and further no good ground is made out to entertain this petition. 6. Resultantly, the Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Shyna Ajay