Surveyor's reports are not conclusive; the Permanent Lok Adalat lacks express review power, reinforcing writ jurisdiction's limits on factual disputes.

ORDER :

ANIL KUMAR UPMAN, J.

1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner M/s R K Joinery Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur seeking following relief:-

i) quashing and setting aside the impugned judgment dated 25.02.2006 (Annx.11) and order dated 29.07.2006 (Annx.13) passed by the Permanent Lok. Adalat, Jaipur City, Jaipur.

ii) allowing the application (Annx.9) filed by the humble petitioner under Section 22 (C) of the Act of 2002 before the Permanent Lok Adalat, Jaipur City, Jaipur in terms of the prayer contained therein;

iii) any other order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly also be passed in favour of humble petitioner including award of cost of this writ petition.

2. Brief facts of the case as narrated in the claim application filed before the Permanent Lok Adalat are that the petitioner- Company is a private limited company having engaged in the business of manufacturing of wooden/iron furniture and handicrafts items. The petitioner-Company got its plant and machinery and other electric instruments and accessories insured to the extent of Rs. 24,00,000/- and another insurance of its stock of finished and unfinished goods in the sum of Rs. 24,00,000/- with the respondent-Insurance Company for a period from 09.05.2003 to 08.05.2004 by making a payment of a sum of Rs. 23,184/- as premium. Unfortunately, on the midnight of 27.01.2004, M/s Surendra Industries which was located adjacent to the factory of the petitioner-Company caught fire, which also spread over to the factory of the petitioner-Company. With respect to the said incident, the petitioner-Company submitted a written report at PS Malviya Nagar, Jaipur and information was also given to the respondent-Insurance Company. Upon receiving the said information from the petitioner-Company, the respondent- Insurance Company appointed S.K. Bakliwal & Co. as Surveyor Loss Assessor, who asked the petitioner-Company to submit the requisite documents regarding the loss suffered by it on account of the aforesaid fire. Upon which, the petitioner-Company submitted its assessment of loss to the Surveyor demanding a sum of Rs. 21,70,661/- along with detailed particulars of loss. Ultimately, the Surveyor submitted its report to the respondent- Insurance Company, against which, the petitioner-Company submitted its detailed objections on 07.05.2004. But the respondent-Insurance Company without taking into consideration the objections as well as taking advantage of the financial crisis being faced by the petitioner-Company, sanctioned a claim of Rs. 7,74,540/- only, which the petitioner had to accept under coercion and threat. Thereafter, on 28.05.2004, the petitioner-Company immediately submitted a detailed representation to respondent No.3 for reconsideration of its claim. When no heed was paid to this, a reminder was also sent on 08.06.2004. But, on 14.06.2004, the respondent-Insurance Company rejected the claim of the petitioner-Company by saying that it had already agreed to accept the claim in full and final discharge of its claim under policy. Thereafter, on 13.07.2004, the petitioner-Company served a legal notice for demand of justice upon the respondent- Insurance Company. When nothing happened, the petitioner- Company filed an application under Section 22 -C of the Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987 (hereinafter ref