CWP-20306-2026 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 135 CWP-20306-2026 Date of Decision: 08.07.2026 M/s Crown Constructions …Petitioner(s) Versus The Oriental Insurance Company Limited and others …Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA Present:- Mr. Rajesh Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA, J. (Oral) The petition has been filed seeking a writ of mandamus directing the third respondent/Insurance Ombudsman to decide the petitioner’s complaint, Annexure P-13, against repudiation of his Motor OD Claim no.OICCLM96/31/20/124350 under Policy no.242596/31/2024/TMC/49902, issued by the Oriental Insurance Company Limited. 2. Learned counsel submits that after registration of the complaint, the petitioner received a communication dated 11.04.2025, Annexure P-14, seeking certain documents; the same were duly furnished by him vide email dated 14.04.2025, Annexure P-15. Thereafter, no notice was received from the Ombudsman, nor did any hearing take place. The emails sent by the petitioner seeking decision of the complaint remained unanswered; he has referred to the latest email dated 16.03.2026, Annexure P-17, in that regard. It is further contended that in terms of Rule 17(4) of the Insurance Ombudsman Rules, 2017 (for short, ‘the 2017 Rules’), Annexure P-16, the third respondent is mandated PAYAL 2026.07.15 10:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-20306-2026 -2-

to finalise its findings and pass an award within a period of three months of receiving all requirements from the complainant. This mandate has not been adhered to. 3. Service of notice on the respondents has been dispensed with keeping in view the nature of directions being issued which are not to their prejudice. 4. Considering the facts aforementioned as also the position under the 2017 Rules specifying the time period to pass the award, the petition is disposed of with a direction to the third respondent to consider and decide the petitioner’s aforementioned complaint expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. (TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA) JUDGE 08.07.2026 Payal Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No PAYAL 2026.07.15 10:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

CWP-20306-2026 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 135 CWP-20306-2026 Date of Decision: 08.07.2026 M/s Crown Constructions …Petitioner(s) Versus The Oriental Insurance Company Limited and others …Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA Present:- Mr. Rajesh Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA, J. (Oral) The petition has been filed seeking a writ of mandamus directing the third respondent/Insurance Ombudsman to decide the petitioner’s complaint, Annexure P-13, against repudiation of his Motor OD Claim no.OICCLM96/31/20/124350 under Policy no.242596/31/2024/TMC/49902, issued by the Oriental Insurance Company Limited. 2. Learned counsel submits that after registration of the complaint, the petitioner received a communication dated 11.04.2025, Annexure P-14, seeking certain documents; the same were duly furnished by him vide email dated 14.04.2025, Annexure P-15. Thereafter, no notice was received from the Ombudsman, nor did any hearing take place. The emails sent by the petitioner seeking decision of the complaint remained unanswered; he has referred to the latest email dated 16.03.2026, Annexure P-17, in that regard. It is further contended that in terms of Rule 17(4) of the Insurance Ombudsman Rules, 2017 (for short, ‘the 2017 Rules’), Annexure P-16, the third respondent is mandated PAYAL 2026.07.15 10:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-20306-2026 -2-

to finalise its findings and pass an award within a period of three months of receiving all requirements from the complainant. This mandate has not been adhered to. 3. Service of notice on the respondents has been dispensed with keeping in view the nature of directions being issued which are not to their prejudice. 4. Considering the facts aforementioned as also the position under the 2017 Rules specifying the time period to pass the award, the petition is disposed of with a direction to the third respondent to consider and decide the petitioner’s aforementioned complaint expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. (TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA) JUDGE 08.07.2026 Payal Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No PAYAL 2026.07.15 10:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment