The Permanent Lok Adalat must assess the merits of insurance claims and cannot substitute its reasoning for that of the insurance company, especially in cases of procedural lapses.

JUDGMENT

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

Challenge in the present writ petition is to the award dated 19.09.2022 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Faridabad, whereby petition No.2182 of 2017, filed by the petitioner under Section 22-C of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, seeking payment of loss on account of theft of the vehicle, has been dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner-company is owner of vehicle bearing registration No HR-38-S-4144 which was stolen by some unknown persons on the intervening night of 29/30.12.2014 when the said vehicle was parked in front of the house of the friend of the driver Ram Avadh. The theft was detected in the morning of 30.12.2014 and the matter was promptly reported to the police. The information was also sent by the petitioner on the toll free number issued by the insurance company and was also given to the Police Station but the police did not take any action in the matter and asked the driver to carry out the search of the vehicle on his own level whereupon the owner and driver of the vehicle searched the vehicle in the States of Rajasthan Delhi and Uttar Pradesh but the same was not traceable. The FIR bearing No.567 of 31.12.2014 was thereafter registered by the police under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, at Police Station Saran, District Faridabad. The claim submitted by the petitioner against the vehicle was even though registered by the registered respondent insurance company, however, the same was not processed on account of deficiency of certain documents. The police submitted its final un-traced report on 28.05.2015 Despite all the said documents necessary for approving the claim having been submitted, however, no decision was taken thereupon and the claim was repudiated solely on the ground that the claim could not be honoured on account of non-compliance of formalities and submission of relevant documents. Consequently, an application was filed by the petitioner before the permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Faridabad.

3. Notice was issued to the entered appearance and filed its response raising various objections including reiterating its objections that relevant documents were not furnished by the petitioner due to which the case could not be processed the same was hence rightly closed as 'no claim.'

4. Efforts for an amicable resolution of the dispute under Section 22-C (4) to (7) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 were undertaken by the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services),Faridabad and on failure of the reconciliation, adjudication under section 22C (8) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 was initiated by Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Faridabad.

5. Parties led their respective evidence and upon consideration of the rival submissions and evidence brought on record by the learned counsel for the parties,the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Faridabad, dismissed the application filed by the petitioner on the ground that there was violation of the terms and conditions of the policy and that intimation was not timely submitted by the petitioner with the Insurance Company due to which there was delay in consideration of the issues and on the part of claimant in taking appropriate steps for mitigating the loss.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent insurance company relies upon the award passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Faridabad, to justify its stand.

7. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and have also gone through the present petition with their able assistance.

8. It is evident from a perusal of the award passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Faridabad that the same has been passed dismissing the application under Section 22-C of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, submitted by the petitioner on the ground that the ve