Page No.# 1/8 GAHC010246932024 2026:GAU-AS:5914 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/6348/2024 ANUP KUMAR NAG SON OF LATE NRIPENDRA CHANDRA NAG, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- CHARAKURI, BIPIN PAUL ROAD, NEAR WATER TANK, WARD NO. 6, POST OFFICE- KARIMGANJ, POLICE STATION- KARIMGANJ, DISTRICT- KARIMGANJ, ASSAM, PIN- 788711. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, MINISTRY OF FINANCE DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 06. 2:THE REGIONAL MANAGER THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED G.S. ROAD OPPOSITE FLYOVER BRIDGE MANIPURI RAJBARI ULUBARI DISTRICT- KAMRUP(M) GUWAHATI- 781007. 3:THE BRANCH MANAGER THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED KARIMGANJ TOWN ROY PATTY Page No.# 2/8 KARIMGANJ P.O.AND P.S.- KARIMGANJ PIN CODE- 788711 DISTRICT- KARIMGANJ ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B K SEN, P SINGH,I KHATOON,N HASAN,MR A HUSSAIN Advocate for the Respondent : SC, FINANCE DEPTT., MR. R SHARMA (R-2) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA ORDER Date : 29.04.2026 Heard Mr. B. K. Sen, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. K. Goswami, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent nos. 2 & 3. 2. The petitioner’s case is that the petitioner is running a cloth business of selling readymade garments at his shop, situated at Charakuri, Bipin Paul road, Ward No. 6, Post Officer-Karimganj in District Karimganj in a part of his residence. The petitioner has insured his shop premises with the Oriental Insurance Company, Karimganj Branch under Burglary-Standard Police Schedule dated 24.11.2022, for a sum insured of Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lac only). Accordingly, the petitioner has been paying premium of Rs. 7,080/- (Rupees Seven Thousand Eighty) yearly. It is contended that on 13.04.2023, the petitioner came to Guwahati, after keeping his shop premises under lock and key, however, on return from Karimganj from Guwahati on 17.04.2023, at about 10.00 AM, he found that some miscreants, by breaking down the lock and door of the shop, entered into the shop premises and stolen away various garments and cloths, amounting to Page No.# 3/8 approximately Rs. 6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lac only) and accordingly, the petitioner filed an FIR dated 17.04.2023. After completion of investigation in connection with the Karimganj P.S. Case No. 285/2023, under Section 457/380 IPC, the police submitted the Final Report dated 31.07.2023 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karimganj and the same was accepted by the learned CJM. It is the contention of the petitioner that in the aforesaid Final Report, there is a specific mention that as a result of the aforesaid theft, the petitioner has lost approximately garments valued at Rs. 6,00,000/-. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner filed an application dated 17.04.2023 before the Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Company, Karimganj (respondent no. 3), praying for the payment of loss that has been suffered by the petitioner due to the theft, as the petitioner’s shop premises is covered under the aforesaid policy no. 322601/48/2023/183. It is contended by the petitioner that in spite of submission of the aforesaid claim application, nothing has been done by the respondent no. 3. It is also contended by the petitioner that along with the claim application, the petitioner has also submitted a stock list of his shop dated 18.04.2023, amounting to Rs. 15,75,500/- along with the audit report dated 12.06.2024, issued by the Chartered Accountants, namely, S.B. Dutta. Being aggrieved with the non-response of the respondent no. 3, the petitioner filed a complaint before the Insurance Ombudsman, Guwahati, under Rule No. 16/17 of the Insurance Ombudsman Rules, 2017, vide complaint ref. no. GUW-G-050-2324- 0157. The aforesaid complaint was heard by the Insurance Ombudsman, Guwahati, vide an award dated 20.03.2024, after hearing the parties, including the petitioner and the respondent authorities, vide Award No. IO/GUW/A/GI/0127/2023-2024, the Insurance Ombudsman, Guwahati, disposed of the complaint of the petitioner by directing to pay an amount of Rs. 78,750/- (Rupees Seventy-eight Thousand Seven Hundred) in favour of the complainant towards full and final settlement of Page No.# 4/8 the claim. Being aggrieved by such award, the petitioner has approached this Court, assailing the aforesaid award dated 29.03.2024. 4. Mr. B. K. Sen, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, in spite of having all the materials about the loss of the petitioner due to the theft, the Insurance Ombudsman, Guwahati, only relied on the report of the Surveyor of the Insurance Company dated 15.03.2024, rejected the claim of the petitioner of Rs. 6,00,000/- and only a meagre amount of Rs. 78,750/-. He submits that while passing the aforesaid award dated 29.03.2024, the Insurance Ombudsman, Guwahati, has totally ignored and did not consider the final police report dated 31.07.2023 as well as the balance sheet, as at 01.04.2023 to 18.04.2023 and other audited documents regarding his stock issued by S.B. Dutta, the Chartered Accountant. He submits that the Insurance Ombudsman, Guwahati, has committed an error by totally relying on the investigating report dated 20.03.2024, submitted by the Insurance Investigator, namely, Manik Chandra Dey. He submits that as per the settled law, though a survey report is a vital document, the same cannot be treated as sacrosanct or conclusive. He submits that the Insurance Companies cannot adopt a mechanical or pedantic approach to repudiate or minimize the claims of genuine claimants. He submits that in the instant case, the Insurance Ombudsman, Guwahati, has treated the Investigator’s report as the sole basis of considering his complaint petition and thereby, passed the awardminimizing the claim of the petitioner which is unsustainable under the law. 5. Mr. S. K. Goswami, the learned counsel, appearing for the respondent nos. 2 & 3 submits that no wrong has been committed by the Insurance Ombudsman, Guwahati, in passing the award dated 29.03.2024, as he has considered the survey report along with other documents and materials submitted by the petitioner. He submits that during the investigation, several discrepancies in the bills and stock values were found and the petitioner could not provide the vital document, i.e, the Page No.# 5/8 stock register before the Investigating Officer. He submits that in spite of several request, the petitioner could not substantiate by proper documentary evidence about the loss that he claimed to have suffered. He further submits that during the investigation, it was found that the shop premises was not properly maintained by the petitioner by following the safety norms which is usually applicable in this kind of cases.He submits that the purchase memos that have been submitted by the petitioner are also found to be doubtful. Therefore, the Insurance Investigator (Surveyor) has submitted the report, assessing the total loss at Rs. 59,062.150/-, vide his report dated 15.03.2024. He submits that the audit report of the Chartered Accountants S.B. Dutta, could not establish the alleged loss as claimed by the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid, the learned counsel submits that the instant case involves factual disputes and therefore, the instant petition should be dismissed by rejecting the prayer of the petitioner. 6. This Court has gone through the pleadings in the instant case as well as heard the counsel appearing for the respective parties. 7. It is seen from the award of the Insurance Ombudsman, Guwahati, dated 29.03.2024, that though there is mention of the final police report, dated 13.07.2023 as well as the audit report of the Chartered Accountant, namely, S.B. Dutta, there is no discussion on the aforesaid documents. No reason has been provided as to why those documents could not have been taken into account while considering the complaint of the petitioner. It is a settled law that the Insurance Investigator’s (Surveyor) report is not a sacrosanct document though it is a vital document for considering a claim petition of a person. 8. In the instant case, it is seen that the sole basis of the award of the Insurance Ombudsman is the Insurance Investigator’s (Surveyor) report. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that a vital document such as the police final report, as Page No.# 6/8 well as the audit report, regarding stocks at the relevant point of time, issued by the Chartered Accountant were not considered at all while passing the award, which is against the settled law. 9. In this connection, Rule 15 of the Insurance Ombudsman Rules, 2017, being relevant is reproduced herein below: - “15. Insurance Ombudsman to act fairly and equitably.— (1) The Ombudsman may, if he deems fit, allow the complainant to adopt a procedure other than under sub-rule(1) or sub-rule(2) of rule 14 for making a complaint, after notifying the parties to the dispute. (2) The Ombudsman shall have the power to ask the parties concerned for additional documents in support of their respective contentions and wherever considered necessary, collect factual information relating to the dispute available with the insurer or the insurance broker as the case may be, and may make available such information to the parties concerned. (3) The Ombudsman may obtain the opinion of professional experts, if the disposal of a case warrants it. (4) The Ombudsman shall dispose of a complaint after giving the parties to the dispute a reasonable opportunity of being heard. (5) The Ombudsman may, on his own or on the request of the complainant, hear a matter through video-conference if he is satisfied that circumstances so require, after notifying the complainant and the insurer or insurance broker concerned, subject to guidelines issued by the Council for Insurance Ombudsmen in this regard and published on its website: Provided that the Ombudsman may allow the insurer (including its agents and Intermediaries) or insurance broker, as the case may be, to be heard through video-conference.” Page No.# 7/8 10. From the above, it is discernible that the Ombudsman has the power to ask the parties concerned for documents in support of their respective contentions and whenever considered necessary, collect factual information relating to the dispute available with the insurer or the insurance broker as the case may be. It is also provided that the Ombudsman may obtain the opinion of professional experts, in disposal of a case if the same is warranted. The Ombudsman is required to dispose of a complaint after giving the parties to the dispute a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Therefore, a sufficient power has been given to the Ombudsman to do a fact-finding exercise by requesting documentary evidences and providing the opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. However, in the instant case, no such exercise has been carried out by the Insurance Ombudsman, Guwahati. In fact, though sufficient materials, i.e., the final police report and the aforesaid audit reports were placed before the Insurance Ombudsman, Guwahati, the same were not considered while passing the impugned award dated 29.03.2024. The Insurance Ombudsman, Guwahati has passed the award only on the basis of Insurance Investigator’s (Surveyor) report. 11. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned award dated 29.03.2024 of the Insurance Ombudsman cannot be sustained under the sustained law and therefore, the same is set aside and quashed. 12. Accordingly, it is directed that the Insurance Ombudsman, Guwahati will hear the complaint filed by the petitioner afresh by giving proper opportunity to the concerned parties, including the Insurance Company as well as the petitioner by fixing required dates and after due consideration of the materials brought before the Insurance Ombudsman shall dispose of the complaint petition of the petitioner with a reasoned speaking order within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Page No.# 8/8 13. The petitioner is directed to submit a certified copy of the instant order before the Insurance Ombudsman, Guwahati, at the earliest. 14. In terms of the aforesaid directions, the instant writ petition is disposed of as allowed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant