1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This writ petition is directed against order dated 15.9.05 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Hanumangarh in case no.57/04 whereby an application preferred by the respondent no. 2 under Section 22C of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (in short 'the Act of 1987') has been allowed and the petitioner has been directed to make payment of a sum of Rs. 51,098.40 to the respondent no.2 against the goods damaged covered under Shopkeeper Insurance Policy issued in its favour by the petitioner.

3. The respondent no.2 is a cloth merchant having a shop in Hanumangarh Town on the ground floor and a stock room on the first floor. The shop and the stock room were insured under Shopkeeper Insurance Policy issued by the petitioner Insurance Company. On 25.5.04, on account of heavy rain, the water was collected in the room at the first floor and the stock lying therein was damaged. The petitioner submitted the insurance claim for a sum of Rs. 1,27,746/- which was repudiated by the petitioner Insurance Company. In these circumstances, the respondent no. 2 preferred an application before Permanent Lok Adalat claiming a sum of Rs. 1,27,746/- against the loss caused alongwith interest @ 12 % p.a.

4. The application was contested on behalf of the petitioner company by filing a reply thereto on the ground that the loss in question was not covered under flood risk peril. It was stated that on 25.5.04 there was no flood in Hanumangarh Town and the stock lying in the first floor was not damaged by flood water. It was stated that the damage was caused due to muddy water entered from balcony to the stock room at the first floor of the shop building, which was not covered under the insurance policy.

5. After hearing both the parties, the claim of the respondent no. 2 has been partly allowed by the Permanent Lok Adalat and he has been held entitled for damage to the extent of 40% of the amount claimed. The learned Permanent Lok Adalat has arrived at the finding that in the policy issued, there is no clear clarification excluding the rain water from flood risk peril. Accordingly, vide order impugned, the petitioner has been directed to pay a sum of Rs. 51,098.40 to the respondent no. 2 alongwith interest @ 6 % from the date of application i.e. 23.9.04. Hence, this petition.

6. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Permanent Lok Adalat has seriously erred in deciding the claim in summary proceedings without giving opportunity to the petitioner to lead evidence. The learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has not been able to establish the loss caused by leading any evidence therefore, the finding arrived at by the Permanent Lok Adalat is ex facie perverse. The learned counsel submitted that Permanent Lok Adalat had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute in summary proceedings and such dispute can only be decided by the civil courts where the parties are given opportunity to lead evidence. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the judgment and order passed by the learned Permanent Lok Adalat is contrary to law and facts and suffers from error apparent on the face of record. The learned counsel submitted that the policy issued in favour of respondent no. 2 covers the risk of flood, inundation, storm, tempest, hurrican, tomadu or cyclone. According to the learned counsel the loss which was admittedly due to rain water, was not covered by the policy. The learned counsel submitted that the learned Permanent Lok Adalat has committed a serious error in holding that the word "flood" includes rain water. Accordingly, it is submitted by the learned counsel that while passing the order impugned, the learned Permanent Lok Adalat has exceeded the jurisdiction vested in it.

7. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 2 submitted that by virtue of provisions of sub-section (8) of Section 22 C, the Permanent Lok Adalat is competent to