The court emphasized the importance of timely intimation to the police and the principles of natural justice and equity in deciding insurance claims.

JUDGMENT

Ritu Bahri , J. - The present petition is for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 28.01.2014 (P-1) passed by respondent no. 2 whereby petitioner-Insurance Co has been directed to pay insured amount i.e 4.25 lacs.

2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No. 1 is registered owner of truck trolla 2213 of 10 tyres bearing registration No. HR-46-B1744 model 2000. The said truck was comprehensively insured with petitioner-Insurance Co, vide Insurance Policy No. 2007/3407 valid from 11.02.2007 to 10.02.2008 with IDV of Rs. 4.25 lacs. In the intervening night of 06-07.12.2007, the said truck trolla was stolen by some unknown person when the same was parked after locking the same in front of house of amar Singh at Village Ugala, District Ambala where the said truck trolla was engaged for loading of sugarcane with Adhoi Sugarcane Centre, District Ambala. The matter was reported to police and F.I.R NO. 153 dated 10.12.2007 was registered under Section 379 IPC at P.S. Barara. The Insurance Company was also informed on 10.12.2007 about the theft of truck in question and the petitioner-Insurance Co had also deputed an Investigator i.e M/s royal Associates to verify the facts and circumstances of the present loss and after receiving the investigation report and verifying the documents and scrutiny of file, the petitioner-Insurance Co repudiated the claim of respondent No. 1 vide letter dated 25.03.2010 (P-2).

3. Against the above said order, respondent No. 1 approached respondent No. 2- Permanent Lok Adalat by way of claim application dated 01.08.2012, which was passed in favour of respondent No. 1 and hence the present writ petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the impugned award is liable to be set aside as respondent No. 1-Permanent Lok Adalat has no jurisdiction to settle the dispute. Learned counsel has further argued that the alleged theft took place on 06/07.12.2007 and even the intimation to the petitioner-Insurance Company was given after one month from the date of alleged theft i.e 04.01.2008. F.I.R was also registered after a gap of 04 days of the theft. This act of respondent No. 1 is giving intimation to the petitioner-Insurance Company after one month is violative of the policy in which it has been clearly mentioned that "Claim for theft of vehicle not payable if the theft not reported within 48 hours of its occurrence."

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 states that the intimation of theft was given to petitioner-Insurance Company promptly. There was no violation of any term or condition of Insurance Policy, as alleged by petitioner-Insurance Company. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 has referred to report dated 25.03.2010 by the Investigator who has repudiated the claim of respondent No. 1 on the ground that since respondent No. 1 had sold the truck in question to one Amar Singh, therefore, the insurable interest of respondent No. 1 has been ceased.

6. Reference has been made to a judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in a case of M/s Galada Power and Telecommunication Ltd vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd and another , (2016) 4 RCR(Civil) 124wherein the Goods were duly insured for transit loss. Insurance Company informed of Transit loss. Therefore, the Insurance Company appointed two surveyors one after the other. Both the surveyors confirmed the shortage. Thereafter, the Investigator appointed by the Insurance Company and relying upon the report of this Investigator, the Insurance company repudiated the claim. However, the order of repudiation was set aside and it was held that there was no valid reasons to appoint Investigator who submitted the report after 08 months. In para 12 and 13,it has been observed as under:-

"12. The National Commission has relied upon Clause 5 and on that basis has rejected the claim by putting the blame on the complainant. The letter of repudiation dated 20th September, 1999,