Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010112422025 2026:GAU-AS:9216 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/1368/2025 ANUP KUMAR NAG S/O- LATE NRIPENDRA CH. NAG R/O- VILL- CHARAKURI BIPIN PAUL ROAD NEAR WATER TANK WARD NO. 6 P.O. P.S. AND DIST. SRIBHUMI ASSAM PIN- 788711. VERSUS THE REGIONAL MANAGER THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. AND ANR G.S. ROAD OPPOSITE FLYOVER BRIDGE MANIPURI RAJBARI ULUBARI DIST. KAMRUP (M) GUWAHATI-781007. 2:THE BRANCH MANAGER THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED ADDRESS- SRI BHUMI TOWN ROY PATTY SRI BHUMI P.O AND P.S. SRI BHUMI PIN- 788711 DIST. SRI BHUMI Page No.# 2/5 ASSAM ------------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. B. K. Sen, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : None appears. BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH ORDER Date : 23.06.2026 Heard Mr. B. K. Sen, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner. 2. The present writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 25.10.2024 passed by the Insurance Ombudsman, Guwahati whereby only an amount of Rs.23,125/- was held to be reasonable as the quantum of insurance payout payable to the Petitioner. 3. This Court has duly perused the materials on record and from a perusal of the materials on record, it is seen that it is the claim of the Petitioner that the Petitioner had taken up a policy namely Bharat Sookshma Udyam Suraksha Policy from the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. covering the stocks of all kinds of cloths, sarees and similar other nature of goods kept in the Page No.# 3/5 Petitioners’ shop. The sum insured was Rs.20,00,000/- for the period from 24.11.2022 to 23.11.2023. 4. On 18.04.2023, on account of a storm, the roof of the Petitioner’s shop was badly damaged resulting in rainwater seeping into the stocks of the Petitioners’ shop which were kept in his shop. 5. The Petitioner estimated the loss to the tune of Rs.9,70,000/- and lodged the complaint on 19.04.2023 claiming an amount of Rs.8,79,540/-. The Insurance company after carrying out the assessment found that the Petitioner was only entitled to an amount of Rs.23,125/- and accordingly, paid the said insurance payout. The Petitioner received the said insurance payout under protest and thereupon filed an application before the Insurance Ombudsman. The Insurance Ombudsman vide the impugned order dated 25.10.2024 on the basis of the Survey Report by their appointed licensed Surveyor upheld the decision of the Insurance Company to pay the insurance payout of an amount of Rs.23,125/- to the Petitioner. The Petitioner being aggrieved, has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 6. Mr. B. K. Sen, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that the Insurance Ombudsman had Page No.# 4/5 passed the impugned order in a perfunctory manner without taking into consideration the complaint which was submitted as well as the documents which were submitted in support thereof. The learned counsel further submitted that the Insurance Ombudsman could not have merely relied upon the Survey Report and passed the order. 7. This Court has heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and has perused the materials on record. 8. The question as to whether the Petitioner is entitled to any further amount over and above the insurance payout paid by the Insurance Company is a question of fact which needs to be proved before a forum wherein the evidence can be led. 9. The Petitioner has adequate, alternative and efficacious remedy before the Consumer Forum as well as the competent Court of Civil Jurisdiction wherein evidence can be led as regards the quantum to which the Petitioner is actually entitled to the loss suffered by the Petitioner. 10. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to entertain the instant writ petition for which the instant writ petition stands dismissed. 11. This Court also takes note of that the Petitioner had been bonafidely and diligently pursuing the instant proceedings and Page No.# 5/5 accordingly, the period from 28.02.2025 till date be excluded while computing the period of limitation, if the Petitioner approaches before the Consumer Forum or before the competent Court of Civil Jurisdiction. JUDGE Comparing Assistant