IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 11.03.2026 CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. DHANDAPANI WP No. 7475 of 2026 Sumathy ..Petitioner Vs M/s. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Rep. by its Authorised Manager, Divisional Office, Spencer Towers, 4th Floor, 770 A, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002.

..Respondent Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue Writ of Mandamus , directing the respondents to disburse the insurance amount covered of period of 2014 to 2015 the petitioners car vide TN-20- BR- 8752 Vide Policy PCCV package Policy to the hands of the petitioner within reasonable time as fixed by this Honorable Court.

For petitioner : Mr.M. Saravanakumar For respondent : Mr.Nageswaran

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed for a direction to the respondent to disburse the Insurance amount covered for the period of 2014 to 2015 vide petitioner's car bearing Registration No.BR-8752 vide policy PCCV package policy to the hands of the petitioner within a reasonable time to be fixed by this Court.

2. The case of the petitioner is that she is the owner of the car bearing Registration No. TN-20-BR-8752. The said vehicle had been hired to Karthick Travels, CIT Nagar, Chennai. According to the petitioner, during the unprecedented torrential rains and floods that occurred on 01.12.2015 and 02.12.2015 in Chennai, the vehicle which was parked in front of the said travel office was completely submerged in flood waters and sustained total damage.

3. It is the further case that the vehicle was duly insured with the respondent Insurance Company under Policy No. 412000/31/2015/8589 and the policy was valid from 21.12.2014 to 20.12.2015. Thus, it is the contention of the petitioner that on the date of the occurrence of the flood damage, the insurance policy was in force. However, despite the same, the respondent Insurance Company failed to settle the claim submitted by the petitioner.

4. Aggrieved by the inaction of the Insurance Company, the petitioner approached the Insurance Ombudsman, Chennai. Subsequently, the Insurance Ombudsman, by Award No.IO/CHEN/A/GI/0075 dated 13.07.2018, directed the respondent Insurance Company to reassess the loss, settle the claim as per the revised assessment and also pay interest under Rule 17(7) of the Insurance Ombudsman Rules, 2017, without making deductions on account of aggravated damages caused due to delay. According to the petitioner, even after the said award was passed, the respondent Insurance Company did not reassess the claim nor settle the same. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai (North) by filing C.C. No.6 of 2023. However, the said complaint came to be dismissed on technical grounds relating to maintainability under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

5. It is the further case of the petitioner that thereafter she submitted a detailed representation dated 22.09.2025 requesting the respondent to comply with the award passed by the Insurance Ombudsman. However, the respondent has not taken any action. According to her, under Rule 17(6) of the Insurance Ombudsman Rules, 2017, the insurer is required to comply with the award within thirty days from the date of receipt of the award. Since the award passed by the Insurance Ombudsman has not been implemented till date, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents to implement the award passed by the Insurance Ombudsman, Chennai in Award No. IO/CHEN/A/GI/0075 dated 13.07.2018.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Insurance Ombudsman had already adjudicated the issue and passed a categorical award directing the respondent Insurance Company to reassess the loss and settle the claim along with interest. Despite the statutory mandate under Rule 17(6) of the Insurance Ombudsman Rules, 2017, the respondent has not complied with the awar