IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 01.07.2025 STATE BANK OF INDIA GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD AND ANOTHER .....Petitioners VERSUS GULSHAN KUMAR AND OTHERS .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Present : Mr. Krishna Kant, Advocate, for the petitioner.

KULDEEP TIWARI , J.(Oral)

1. Through the instant writ petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, challenge is thrown to the order dated 14.02.2025 (Annexure P-3), passed by respondent no.3-Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Ludhiana, vide which the application moved by respondents no.1 and 2, under the provisions of Section 22-C of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987, was allowed, and a direction was issued to the petitioners to pay Rs.7,20,000/- to them.

2. Succinctly, respondents no.1 and 2, filed an application under Section 22-C of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987, for settlement of dispute before the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services) concerned. It is averred in the application that the respondent no.1 and 2/applicants are the registered owners of vehicle bearing No.PB- 10-GX-9088, Engine No.4SPCR11GRY637605, Chasis No.MAT505211J8G16672, Make Tata SAF 407, year of Manufacturing 2018. The said vehicle was got ensured from the petitioners-insurance company vide Policy No.P03170820124655 which was valid from 18.08.2020 to 17.08.2021, with total IDV value of Rs.7,20,000/- on payment of required premium of Rs.22,180/-. As per the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy act of theft was also covered therein. During the validity of the insurance policy the vehicle was stolen on intervening night of 28/29.05.2021. In this regard an FIR bearing No.0116, dated 01.06.2021, under Section 379 IPC, was registered at Police Station Jamalpur, Ludhiana. The investigation was carried. Having failed in tracing out the said stolen vehicle, the policy authorities filed untraced report before the learned Illaqa Magistrate, Ludhiana, which was duly accepted by the Presiding Officer, vide order dated 11.09.2021.

3. The report regarding theft/loss was reported to the petitioners-insurance company, alongwith all relevant documents, however, the petitioners-insurance company, refused to make the payment, forcing respondents no.1 and 2/applicants to approach the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services) concerned, by filing application under the provisions of Section 22-C of the Legal Services Authority Act.

4. Upon filing such application, and upon issuing notice therein, the petitioners-insurance company did cause appearance and took a specific stand that the stolen vehicle was infact recovered after theft, by Police of Police Station Mataur, Mohali, and for that they also placed reliance upon their own investigator's report, and statement of one ASI Sukhwinder Singh, who telephonically informed the investigator of the petitioners-insurance company, regarding recovery of the stolen vehicle. Apart from this, a specific stand of recovery of stolen vehicle alongwith other formal objections, was taken by the petitioners-insurance company. Finally, the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services) concerned, finding lapse on the part of the insurance company, passed the impugned Award.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners-insurance company, in an attempt to thrown challenge to the Award (supra), submits that the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services) concerned, failed to take a note of the fact that after the untraced report was filed before the learned Illaqa Magistrate concerned, the vehicle was recovered, and this aspect disentitle respondents no.1 and 2, for the insurance amount, as awarded by the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services) concerned. To support his submissions, he placed reliance upon the statement of Sh. Shubham Arora, Investigator, and ASI Sukhwinder Singh. No other argument was raised before this Court by learned counsel for the petitioners.

6. This C