1. - This writ petition is directed against order dated 24.2.09 of Permanent Lok Adalat, Hanumangarh, whereby an application preferred by the petitioner herein under Section 22C of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (for short "the Act") against the insurer, National Insurance Company Limited (NICL), repudiating the claim of insurance, stands rejected.

2. The petitioner's husband was insured with the respondent-NICL under Public Accident Policy for a sum assured Rs. 1 lac for the period 10.12.97 to 10.12.07. The petitioner's husband died on 28.8.06 due to fall from the roof of his house. Since the death was accidental, the petitioner laid the claim before the NICL, however, the claim stood repudiated vide communication dated 5.12.06 issued by the Branch Manager, NICL, Hanumangarh Junction on the ground that the papers submitted by the petitioner as nominee do not give any proof of death by accident. In these circumstances, the petitioner preferred an application before the Permanent Lok Adalat, Hanumangarh under Section 22C of the Act. The application was contested by the respondent-NICL on the ground that the roof of the house was only 8 ft. high and therefore, a person falling from just 8 ft. height cannot die. That apart, it was contended that there were no external injuries on the body of the deceased and no FIR regarding the accidental death was lodged by the nominee. The NICL contended that no evidence was produced by the nominee to establish that death of her husband was accidental.

3. After consideration of the rival submissions, the Permanent Lok Adalat has rejected the application observing that from bare perusal of the application dated 5.12.06, it is apparent that on account of failure on the part of the petitioner in producing the requisite documents, the claim-file was closed by the NICL and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Permanent Lok Adalat has seriously erred in rejecting the application preferred by the petitioner by passing an order in cursory manner. Learned counsel while drawing the attention of this court to the application preferred by the petitioner before the NICL raising the claim, submitted that the application preferred by the petitioner was accompanied by the requisite documents and therefore, ignoring this aspect of the matter, the rejection of the application by the Permanent Lok Adalat without consideration of the petitioner's claim on merits, solely on the basis of the communication dated 5.12.06 sent by the NICL, erroneously referred as the application of the NICL, is ex facie illegal and arbitrary. Learned counsel submitted that sufficient evidence was placed on record by the petitioner including the statements of neighbors and therefore, without considering the evidence on record, the Permanent Lok Adalat has erred in rejecting the application.

5. On the other hand, the counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the petitioner had not submitted the requisite documents to establish that her husband had died on account of fall from the roof and therefore, the claim was rightly repudiated by the NICL. Learned counsel submitted that unless the factum of accidental death is proved by any cogent evidence, the claim under Public Accident Policy cannot be accepted.

6. I have considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

7. Indisputably, the application preferred by the petitioner has been rejected by the Permanent Lok Adalat solely relying upon the communication dated 5.12.06 sent by the NICL to the petitioner, which has been erroneously referred in the order as the application of the NICL, without considering the case set out by the petitioner in the application filed and the material placed on record in support thereof. Thus, the order impugned passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat by passing a cryptic order without considering the materia