Mr. Rameshwar Singh Malik, J.: - The present writ petition is directed against the award dated 9.5.2011 (Annexure P-1), passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Gurgaon, directing the petitioner insurance company to pay the due amount to the claimant-respondent No.2.

2. Facts first. Respondent-claimant was owner of a Tata truck bearing registration No. HR-55-G-1690. The vehicle was insured with the petitioner-Insurance company and the insurance policy was valid from 14.11.2009 to 13.11.2010. The vehicle met with an accident on 25.2.2010, wherein the vehicle was damaged. Petitioner-company was informed about the accident on the same day. A surveyor was appointed by the company for assessing the loss caused, due to damage to the vehicle, in a road accident. The surveyor submitted his report. Application for claiming the compensation was filed by the claimant vide Annexure P-2. Petitioner-company filed its reply vide Annexure P- 3. After hearing the parties, the Permanent Lok Adalat vide impugned award dated 9.5.2011 (Annexure P-1), accepted the application of the respondent-claimant and issued direction to the petitioner-company, to pay the due amount to the claimant. Hence, this writ petition.

3. Notice of motion was issued.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while passing the impugned award, the Permanent Lok Adalat acted without jurisdiction. He further submits that the amount awarded by the Permanent Lok Adalat was on the higher side and the surveyor report has not been kept in view. To substantiate his arguments, reliance has been placed on two judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sikka Papers Limited v. National Insurance Company Limited and others, [2009(4) Law Herald (SC) 2168] : (2009) 7 SCC 777 and Sri Venkateswara Syndicate v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and another, [2009(5) Law Herald (SC) 3396] : (2009) 8 SCC 507. Finally, he prays for setting aside the impugned order, by allowing the present writ petition.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the judgment of this Court in Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Vijay Kumar and another (CWP No.20825 of 2010) decided on 4.1.2012 squarely covers the present case against the petitioner and in favour of respondent-claimant. He further submits that surveyor report was undated and it was conveniently silent about the bills of the claimant. He next contended that the petitioner-insurance company, at the first opportunity, while filing its written statement before the Permanent Lok Adalat (Annexure P-3), did not say anything about the surveyor’s report. The written statement was also undated. Thus, the learned Permanent Lok Adalat has very rightly passed the impugned award in favour of the claimant. On the issue of jurisdiction, he submits that in view of law laid down by this Court in Reliance General Insurance Company’s case (supra), the Permanent Lok Adalat had the jurisdiction and rightly proceeded to decide the case on merits while passing the impugned award. Thus, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length, after careful perusal of the record of the case and giving thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions raised, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present one is not a fit case, warranting any interference at the hands of this Court, while exercising its writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. To say so, reasons are more than one, which are being recorded hereinafter.

7. It has gone undisputed on the record that respondent-claimant was the owner of Tata Truck bearing registration no. HR-55-G- 1690. It is further not in dispute that vehicle was insured with the petitioner-insurance company. It is also not in dispute that the accident took place when the insurance policy was valid. It is further pleaded case of the claimant that after the survey of the ve