Judgment :- The 2nd respondent purchased a new brand Honda City car from Sundaram Motors, Chennai in August, 2004 and took a comprehensive insurance coverage of his Honda City car from the time of purchase with Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited. The value of the Honda City car was declared as Rs.6,39,100/-. Therefore, the 2nd respondent paid a total sum of Rs.23,768/-as premium covering the insurance period from 18.08.2004 to 17.08.2005 for his Honda City car having registration No.TN 01 X 8658. The Insurance Company has also given policy No.UP00017669000100. The same is also evidenced by the R.C. Book. .2. While so, the claimant, D.Chandramouli/the 2nd respondent herein, went to Park Hotel at Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai, to attend a wedding anniversary function at 50. p.m. on 14.05.2005 with his Honda City car driven by himself. After reaching the portico of the Park Hotel, as there was a facility of valet parking in the Hotel, after alighting from the car, the Security staff of the Hotel took delivery of the car and issued him car parking token bearing No.66174. The Hotel has video camera arrangements installed at the portico to photograph the vehicles entering into the Hotel and delivered to them for moving into the parking lot. The claimant, D.Chandramouli, the 2nd respondent herein, after attending the wedding anniversary function, reached the portico of the Hotel and asked for delivery of the car by showing the parking token bearing No.66174 issued by the Hotel staff. Unfortunately, the car was missing. After a thorough search, the Hotel Authority and the Security informed the claimant that the key and the car are missing. The Hotel staff also reported that the car was stolen. Immediately, on 15.05.2005 at 10.00 a.m. the claimant, the 2nd respondent herein, reported in writing, the missing of his car and lodged a compliant with E3 Teynampet Police Station, Chennai mentioning that he had left his Office Bag in his car which contains the Pass Book, Cheque Book, Credit Cards, L.I.C. Policies, Cash and one A.T.M. Card of Indian Overseas Bank. The claimant again addressed a letter to the Commissioner of Police on 19.05.2005 in this regard. The claimant again addressed a letter to the Commissioner of Police on 19.05.2005 in this regard. The Crime Branch police of Teynampet submitted in application to the Metropolitan Magistrate, 18th Court, stating that the investigation conducted by them indicated that the car was stolen and thereafter, a case under Section 379 of I.P.C. was registered for further enquiry and investigation. Thereafter, the Park Hotel also, by letter dated 19.05.2005 confirmed the occurrence of theft. Subsequently, the Hotel Manager also accompanied the claimant, the second respondent herein, to Police Station for lodging a compliant. After all these things, the insurer repudiated liability to indemnify by letter dated 08.06.2005 on the ground that the car has been lost in the custody of the Hotel and the loss does not clearly fall within the scope of the insurance policy. By a communication, the second respondent herein represented the matter personally for review of the claim in his letters dated 14.07.2005 and 25.07.2005. Again the insurer, the petitioner herein, vide another letter dated 29.07.2005, reiterated their earlier stand and refused to indemnify the loss. The insurance policy deals with occurrences and events could not arise to a claim and the policy and theft is in the event covered by the policy. Otherwise, the theft and risk covered by the insurance policy. In a contract of indemnity, the insurer namely, the petitioner herein should be concerned with the direct cause of loss and if an insured risk operates, his liability is certain and should be met. When the insured/the owner of the car has taken an insurance coverage by paying a sum of Rs.23,768/- as annual premium for the total value of the car of Rs.6,39,100/-he has an insurable interest in respect of motor car bearing registration No.TN 01 X 8658. 3. The claim of the insurer/the 2nd respondent was repudiated and the matter reached the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman took up the case and after giving an opportunity to both sides, passed an award under Rule 16 of the Redressal of Public Grievance Rules, 1998 holding the petitioner herein, liable for the loss and thus, allowed the complaint in favour of the owner of Honda City car. The correctness of the award passed by the Ombudsman is put to challenge in the present writ petition. .4. The correctness of the award passed by the Ombudsman is put to challenge in the present writ petition. .4. The learnedcounsel appearing for the petitioner, the Insurance Company submits that the Hotel Park is responsible for the loss of the car as Bailie and therefore, the Park Hotel is liable to maintain the duty of the car, but, the Ombudsman overlooked this basic aspect and, therefore ordering payment of compensation to the claimant, the 2nd respondent herein, is unsustainable. Secondly, it was argued that since the policy conditions specifically under Section 1 loss or damage to the private car insured as, the Company will indemnify to the private car insured by burglary, house .breaking or theft, the car was lost when it was under the custody of the Hotel but not under the custody of the claimant/insurer. Thirdly, it was contended that the award was made by the Ombudsman after a lapse of three months time, therefore, the delay in passing award renders the very award void. 5. On the other hand, the claimant/the second respondent herein submits that the writ petition filed by the Insurance Company is not maintainable in law for the simple reason that when the Insurance Company, the petitioner herein, repudiated the claim of the insurer a compliant was made to the 1st respondent, the Ombudsman on 29.07.2005. The insurer, the petitioner herein, also agreed to submit to the mediation of the Ombudsman by writing a letter dated 10.08.2005, specifically requesting the Ombudsman to resolve the dispute and after the insurer submitted to the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman for settling the claim, it is not open to the Insurance Company to turn around and deny the correctness of the award passed by the Ombudsman. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the Ombudsman submits that once the insurer namely, the Insurance Company and the insured the claimant, the 2nd respondent had agreed the mediation of the Ombudsman and after passing of the award passed by the Ombudsman since the award of Ombudsman does not provide for any forum of the appeal to the insurer to agitate the matter before any Court under Rule 16(6) of the Redressal of the Public Grievances Rule,1998, the present writ petition is not maintainable. On that basis, the learned counsel for the Ombudsman prayed for dismissal of the present writ petition. 7. On that basis, the learned counsel for the Ombudsman prayed for dismissal of the present writ petition. 7. The 3rd respondent/the Park Hotel also filed its counter stating that the 2nd respondent has initiated separate proceedings against the Park Hotel before the District Consumer Forum (South) in C.C.No. 216 of 2007 and the same is pending. Therefore, the petitioner can no longer initiate proceedings against this respondent. Hence, the present writ petition is without any merit. 8. Heard the learned counsel on both sides. .9. The 2nd respondent the owner of a new Honda City car purchased from Sundaram Motors, Chennai in August, 2004 has taken a comprehensive insurance for the car from the time of purchase with Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd., by paying a total premium of Rs.23,768/-on the insured declared value of Rs.6,39,100/-. The Insurance Company, the petitioner herein, also issued insurance policy No.UP0001766900100 for Honda City car bearing registration No. TN 01 X 8658 for covering the insurance policy from 18.08.2004 to 17.08.2005. The car owner, D.Chandramouli visited Park Hotel, Chennai at 9.50 p.m. on 14.05.2005 for attending a wedding anniversary function. The Honda City car was driven by the claimant and when it reached the portico of the Hotel, after alighting from the car, the security staff of the Hotel took delivery of the car and issued car bearing token No.66174. The Hotel has also the advantage of video camera arrangements installed at the portico to photograph the vehicles entering into the Hotel and delivered to them for moving into the parking lot. The photograph taken by the Hotel at 21.48 hours on 14.05.2005 was also produced before the Ombudsman by the insured claimant, the 2nd respondent herein to prove the case of loss of vehicle so as to have the benefit of insurance coverage. After attending the function, when the claimant, the 2nd respondent reached the portico asked for delivery of the car by showing the parking token bearing No.66174 issued by the Hotel staff and after detailed search was made by the Hotel staff, the security informed the 2nd respondent that the key and the car are missing and, thereafter, the Hotel staff reported the car was stolen. Immediately, on the next day i.e. 15.05.2005 at 10.00 a.m., the 2nd respondent claimant reported in writing and lodged a compliant with E3 Teynampet Police Station, Chennai mentioning that he had left his Office Bag in his car which contains Pass Book, Cheque Book, Credit Cards, L.I.C. Policies, Cash amount and one A.T.M. Card of Indian Overseas Bank. The police also registered a F.I.R. After investigation by the Crime Branch Police of Teynampet Police Station, an application was submitted to the Metropolitan Magistrate, 18th Court stating that a car was stolen and therefore, the case under Section 379 of I.P.C. was registered for further enquiry and investigation. 10. The Park Hotel by letter dated 19.05.2005 confirmed that there was a compliant of theft. In these circumstances, when the claim was made before the Insurance Company, an investigator by name Mr.Arya was appointed and on the basis of the investigation report the claim of the insured, the 2nd respondent was repudiated by the Insurance Company. As a result, the 2nd respondent herein laid the claim before the Ombudsman on 29.07.2005. The Insurance Company also, accepting the Mediation the Ombudsman by letter dated 10.08.2005 agreed to submit to the Mediation of the Ombudsman for the resolution of the complaint made by the insurer/the 2nd respondent herein. The Ombudsman, after the parties agreed to accept the mediation of the Ombudsman directed the Insurance Company to investigate the case and reported to the Ombudsman with their final decision along with the findings of the investigation within a period of three weeks. The claimant was also directed to extend all necessary co-operation for the investigation. Thereafter, the Insurance Company appointed M/s.A.S.N.Arya & Company to investigate into the missing of the Honda City car. After the Insurance Company submitted the report, the Ombudsman examined the matter in detail. The Ombudsman finally came to the conclusion that the Honda City car bearing registration No.TN 01 X 8658 was covered under the private car coverage by the insured. .11. The nomenclature given to the policy is car sold private package policy. The Section I of private car package policy deals with loss or damage to a private car insured. As per the Section I, the insurance company will indemnify the insured against loss or damage to the private car insured hereunder and/or its accessories thereon under 10 eventualities. .11. The nomenclature given to the policy is car sold private package policy. The Section I of private car package policy deals with loss or damage to a private car insured. As per the Section I, the insurance company will indemnify the insured against loss or damage to the private car insured hereunder and/or its accessories thereon under 10 eventualities. Since the loss of the vehicle is covered under the above said eventualities, the Ombudsman finally passed an award holding the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the loss of the cost of Rs.6,39,100/- on the ground that very purpose of insurance will be defeated if immediate indemnity is not made available to the insured soon after the reported accidental loss on the ground of legal liability of third party namely, the Bailie/Securities for such accidental loss and also held that the very purpose insurance will be well made, if the contention of the insured, the 2nd respondent is founded to the effect that the hotel is liable, they are at liberty to subrogate themselves with the right of the insured on payment of the claim under the policy and work out their remedy against the Hotel Park subject to law governing their liability as Bailee subject to terms and conditions under which car was left in their custody. Therefore, when the case of the Insurance Company, the petitioner herein accepted the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman for passing of the award to resolve their dispute and when the Ombudsman also, after thorough investigation of the dispute came to the conclusion that the claimant, the 2nd respondent is the owner of the Honda City car, the Insurance Company is liable for such a loss as it is accidental on account of theft occurred while parking his vehicle in the Hotel premises. 12. It is not open to the Insurance Company to wriggle out from his promise in accepting the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman. It is also an admitted fact that the Honda City car purchased by the 2nd respondent through Sundaram Motors, in August 2004 is covered with the Insurance Company policy No.UP00017669000100. It is also an admitted fact the 2nd respondent had paid the premium of Rs.23,768/- for the insured declared value of Rs.6,39,100/-. Therefore, the 2nd respondent is having a valid insurance claim and the motor policy which covers the occurrence of theft of the vehicle also. 13. It is also an admitted fact the 2nd respondent had paid the premium of Rs.23,768/- for the insured declared value of Rs.6,39,100/-. Therefore, the 2nd respondent is having a valid insurance claim and the motor policy which covers the occurrence of theft of the vehicle also. 13. While so, the Insurance Company cannot legally repudiate the liability to indemnify the declared value of Rs.6,39,100/-. Under these circumstances, the Ombudsman also, after analysing the case of the both sides, accepted the claim of the insured, the 2nd respondent. The establishment of Ombudsman made by the governing body under Section 114 of the Insurance Act, 1938 is also to resolve the bona fide claims of insurer. Rule 16 (6) of the Redressal of Public Grievances Rule, 1998 states that the insurer shall comply with the award within 15 days of the receipt of the acceptance of the letter under sub Rule 5 and it shall intimate the complaints to the Ombudsman. 14. Accordingly, the insurer the 2nd respondent herein has conveyed his acceptance of the award of the Ombudsman within 15 days. Therefore, it is very clear that the Insurance Company has no option except to honour the award. Secondly, the Ombudsman is a creature of statute under Section 114 (1) of the Insurance Act, 1938 with rules framed as Redressal of Public Grievances Rule, 1998 which came into effect from 111. 1998. Under the above said Rule 6, the Ombudsman has been appointed by the governing body from a panel board by the committee consisting of a Chairman of Insurance Regulatory Authority, to be the representatives of Insurance counsels including one from the Life Insurance business and from general insurance business respectively, and also one representative of the Central Government, and as such the petitioner/Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited cannot have any grievance against the award passed by the Ombudsman. In respect of the delay in passing the award, it is relevant to mention that the Insurance Company was directed by the Ombudsman to submit a report within a period of three weeks from the date of hearing namely, 06.09.2005. But, the investigation report was received by the Ombudsman only after 38 days from the date of hearing and this delay in forwarding the investigation report was caused by the Insurance Company themselves. But, the investigation report was received by the Ombudsman only after 38 days from the date of hearing and this delay in forwarding the investigation report was caused by the Insurance Company themselves. Therefore, the Insurance Company who have caused the delay of 38 days in submitting the report cannot blame the Ombudsman for not keeping the time schedule for passing the award. When the delay is attributable to the Insurance Company, the award cannot be questioned on the ground of delay by the Ombudsman. 15. It is also pertinent to note that the Insurance Ombudsman, after providing full opportunity to both the Insurance Company as well as the claimant, by adhering to the principles of natural justice by taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidences and also on receipt of the investigation report from the Insurance Company which was received with delay, finally, passed an award dated 111. 2005, directing the Insurance Company to settle the claim. Therefore, such findings do not call for interference for more than one reason. Firstly, the Insurance Company and the claimant, the 2nd respondent herein, submitted to the Ombudsman before passing the award. Secondly, the award of the Ombudsman under Rule 16(6) of the Redressal of the Public Grievances Rules, 1998 does not provide any forum of appeal to the insurer to agitate the matter before any Court. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is not maintainable. It is it made clear that the deposit of Rs.6,39,100/-made by the petitioner/Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited, on 07.03.2006 in Indian Bank, High Court Branch is permitted to be withdrawn by the second respondent/D.Chandramouli together with interest accrued thereon till date. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. With the above observation, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.