[2026:RJ-JP:14540] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 560/2026 Ramesh Chand Regar S/o Mr. Jagannath, Aged About 59 Years, R/o B-236, B-Block, Mahesh Nagar, Near Pani Ki Tanki, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus Icici Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., Through Authorised Representative, Registered Office At - Icici Lombard House, 414, Veer Savarkar Marg, Near Siddhi Vinayak Temple, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400025. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rahul Kashyap for Mr. Sharvan Saini For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Order 08/04/2026 The present writ petition has been filed invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, assailing the impugned order dated 03.12.2025 passed by the learned Insurance Ombudsman, Jaipur. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner’s motor insurance claim to the tune of approximately Rs.7,70,117/- was arbitrarily repudiated. It is further submitted that the learned Insurance Ombudsman dismissed the complaint of the petitioner without conducting a substantive factual analysis, and merely placed reliance upon the First Information Report (FIR), newspaper clippings, which allegedly lack evidentiary admissibility. Heard. [2026:RJ-JP:14540] (2 of 2) [CW-560/2026] Upon perusal of the impugned order, this Court has observed that that the petitioner’s insured vehicle met with a major accident on 16.03.2025. Subsequently, the respondent-Insurance Company rejected the claim vide order dated 26.05.2025, citing the specific reason that the driver of the vehicle was driving under the influence of alcohol at the time of the accident. It is further submitted that the petitioner repaired the vehicle at his own expense, amounting to Rs.7,70,117/-. However, it is an admitted position on record that an FIR was registered in relation to the incident, wherein cognizance has been taken and charges have been framed against the driver for operating the vehicle under the influence of alcohol. Moreover, it is a settled position that the Insurance Ombudsman functions as an alternative dispute resolution and settlement forum, and its findings of fact are generally conclusive in nature. Taking note of the material on record, the Ombudsman dismissed the petitioner's complaint. Considering the facts of the present case and the submissions advanced by learned counsel and taking note of the fact that the scope of judicial review under Article 226 in such matters is exceptionally limited, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the well-reasoned order passed by the learned Insurance Ombudsman. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. (SAMEER JAIN),J Pooja/31