The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of original bills and the jurisdiction of Permanent Lok Adalat to deal with the matter by getting into the merits of the case.

JUDGMENT :

Arun Monga, J.

1. Challenge herein is to an order dated 15.11.2013 (Annexure P1) passed by Permanent Lok Adalat, Gurgaon, whereby, petitioner Insurance Company has been directed to pay Rs.2 lacs to the insured in respect of an insurance claim arising out of damage to a vehicle (Truck) bearing registration No. HR-27J/0412 owned by respondent No.1 which met with an accident on 06.05.2012 when, while trying to save an animal, vehicle is stated to have turned turtle. At the relevant time, the driver of the vehicle, namely, Salim, who is the son of the insured/the claimant was driving the truck from Rajasthan to Bihar and it was loaded with 'Putty' of Asian company. Owing to the vehicle having turned ups and down, it got totally damaged. Intimation was given to the surveyor and the report thereof was prepared leading to lodging of the claim. However, the petitioner Insurance Company paid only a sum of Rs. 1,67,700/- and owing to which, the insured/claimant preferred a claim before the Permanent Lok Adalat.

2. I have heard rival contentions of learned counsels appearing for respective parties.

3. For the reasons stated hereinafter, I am of the opinion the the writ petition is devoid of any merit and the same deserves to be dismissed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Insurance Company paid the amount as per the Surveyor's report and, therefore, the Permanent Lok Adalat committed a material irregularity in going beyond the report of the Surveyor while allowing an amount of Rs.2 lacs, that too based on photocopied bills submitted by the claimant.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that even the bills submitted by the claimant were spread over a year. He further contends that the Permanent Lok Adalat itself noted in its award that there is likelihood that bills of excess amount might have been obtained and yet the said bills have been relied upon while awarding the additional claim to the claimant.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relies on judgment tiled as Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Vijay Kumar and another, (2012) 165 PunLR 794 to contend that the Permanent Lok Adalat could not have decided the case on merits without narrowing down the scope of dispute between the parties before it. He further relies on a judgment tiled as Vijay Pal Verma vs. Permanent Lok Adalat and others, (2017) 185 PunLR 311 to contend that unless the parties are given an opportunity for conciliation by the Permanent Lok Adalat and the same fails and, thereafter, a specific proposal is mooted, the Permanent Lok Adalat could not have entered into the merits of the case.

7. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner relies on a judgment titled as Neebha Kapoor vs. Jayantilal Khandwala and others, (2008) AIR SC 1117 to submit that the Permanent Lok Adalat decides the case by way of a summary trial before it and could not have relied on photocopy of the bills and, therefore, the reliance placed by Permanent Lok Adalat on the bills submitted by the claimant is totally misplaced and on that ground alone, the award is liable to be set aside.

8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1/claimant submits that there is no illegality in the impugned award passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat and the same has been passed on cogent reasoning and after proper appreciation of the evidence adduced before it. He seeks dismissal of the writ petition.

9. Adverting to the argument regarding photocopy of the bills, I am of the opinion that original of all the said bills were submitted before the Surveyor and the same have been discussed by the Surveyor in his report while discarding the same. The necessity of proving/producing the original bills arises only if the same are disputed on the ground of being fabricated. There is neither any allegation of the kind nor even otherwise there is anything mentioned by the Surveyor in his report that the said bills are not qua the repairs of the vehicle in questio