The Permanent Lok Adalat has jurisdiction over insurance claims, and while due process was followed, the award must reflect the depreciated value of repairs.

JUDGMENT

Mr. Vinod S. Bhardwaj, J. (Oral)

The present writ petition has been filed raising a challenge to the award dated 24.01.2013 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Gurugram, in Application No.705 of 2012 whereby the application under section 22 C of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 filed by the respondent No.1-applicant was allowed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner-Insurance Company refers to the facts of the present case as per which the respondent No.1-applicant is the registered owner of the truck bearing registration No. HR 55-C-6513 (Model 2005) and is running his business of transportation under the name and style of Manoj Transport Company, Fleet owner Transport and Cargo Contractor. He got insured the above said vehicle with the petitioner- Insurance Company for the period commencing from 03.03.2010 to 02.3.2011. A premium of Rs.13,074/- had been deposited by the respondent No.1-applicant against the assessed total IDV of the vehicle at Rs.5,40,000/- . It is further contended that the above said vehicle met with an accident on 15.01.2011 at Chandauli, Uttar Pradesh and an intimation in this regard was sent by the respondent No.1-applicant to the petitioner-Insurance Company. The vehicle was taken to ABS Motors Private Limited at Chandauli and the same was repaired at a cost of Rs.2,73,884/-. Alleging that the payment of the bill for repairs had not been released, the application was preferred by the respondent No.1-applicant before the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Gurugram. The defence of the petitioner-Insurance Company, however, was struck off vide order dated 22.10.2012 as no reply was filed despite repeated adjournments. Further, the conciliation efforts also failed to yield any final outcome. After hearing the matter on merits and after going through the record, the application in question was allowed by the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Gurugram vide order dated 24.01.2023. The relevant part of the order reads as under:-

"4. Repeated efforts were made for conciliation but the same was not effected. So we have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and have gone through the averments made by the applicant in the application and also we have gone through the documents produced by the respondent. It is revealed from the averments made by the applicant and from the documents produced that the vehicle of the applicant was insured with the respondent at Gurgaon and insurance policy has been issued from Gurgaon. Contention of Ld. Counsel for the respondent to this effect that this Court has no jurisdiction as the accident has taken place in UP and the repairs have been get done in UP is without any merit. Respondent is also having branch office at Gurgaon and insurance policy has been issued from Gurgaon. Applicant is also resident of Gurgaon. So in our considered opinion this Court has no jurisdiction to hear the present application. Damages caused to the vehicle is also proved. The applicant has got repaired damaged vehicle from TATA Motors Authorized Service Station. Applicant has incurred a sum of Rs. 2,73,884/- in getting his vehicle repaird. Photocopies of the bills are produced which are marked as B, C, D, E, F and G have been produced regarding the expenses incurred in the repairs and consolidated amount of this various bills which are marked as A to G comes out to Rs. 2,73,884/-. The respondent has not paid this amount. There is no justification for rejection of this claim. There is no merit in the written arguments submitted by the respondent. There is no version of the respondent as even the respondent has failed to file the written statement or reply to the application in question despite repeated adjournments.

5. So far a result of above discussion, we direct the respondent to Rs. 2,73,884/- (Rs. Two lac. Seventy three thousand eight hundred and eighty four only) to the applicant within forty five days from today failing which responde