Rahul Sachdeva v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & ORS.

$~32 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 15575/2023& CM APPL.15513/2024 RAHUL SACHDEVA .....Petitioner Through:

Mr. Abhishek Grover, Advocate.

versus NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. & ORS......Respondents Through:

Mr. Abhishek Nanda, Ms. Hrishika Rawat and Ms. Yashika Singh, Advocates for R2.

Mr.

Anurag Kulharia, Mr.

Gyaaneshwar Joshi, Advocates for R3.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

O R D E R

% 11.03.2026 1.

There is no reason to allow the petitioner to make submissions on the merits of the matter for the simple reason that the dispute relates to the claim of the insurance policy availed form the respondents. The petitioner states that his vehicle bearing registration No. DL 8CAU 1983 was stolen on 26.11.2022, pursuant to which FIR No. 755/2022 under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was registered at Police Station Suraj Kund, Faridabad. It is further stated that an untrace report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was, thereafter, filed by the police and the investigator appointed by Respondent No.1 collected the requisite documents and keys of the vehicle and submitted his report to the insurance The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/03/2026 at 11:22:38

company. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite the same, the insurance claim has not been processed by Respondent No.1 and even the complaint made to Respondent No.2 has not elicited any response. 2.

Insofar as the allegation of the petitioner pertains to non-adherence to the applicable rules and regulations, the petitioner has the remedy of approaching the Insurance Ombudsman or the Consumer Forum, as the case may be. It appears that there has been no final adjudication by any such competent authority. The petitioner, therefore, ought to avail the remedies available under law. In these circumstances, this Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, would not be inclined to entertain the present petition.

3.

Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Pending application also stands disposed of.

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J MARCH 11, 2026 Tr/ap The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/03/2026 at 11:22:38