IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 13.10.2025 Ranjeet Singh ...Appellant Versus Permanent Lok Adalat, Public Utility Services, Sirsa and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI Present: Mr. S.S. Brar, Advocate for the appellant.

Ms. Anu Pal, Addl. A.G. Haryana. Mr. Saurabh Savara, Advocate for Mr. Punit Jain, Advocate for respondent No.2.

*****

VIKAS SURI, J.

1. This intra-court appeal under clause X of the Letters Patent, assails the judgment dated 20.07.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition while upholding the order dated 15.02.2016 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Public Utility Services, Sirsa (for short ‘PLA (PUS)’, whereby the application filed by the appellant under Section 22-C of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1987’) for settlement of dispute arising from an insurance policy, was dismissed.

2. Succinctly, the appellant had purchased Mahindra & Mahindra Scorpio vehicle on 14.02.2014, which was assigned temporary registration No.HR-99-PM/2744. The vehicle was insured w.e.f.

14.02.2014 to 13.02.2015 by respondent No.2 (TATA AIG General Insurance Company Ltd.).

2.2 The vehicle was partly financed by Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd (respondent No.3). After completion of finance paper work, the authorized dealer of the vehicle delivered the possession along with bill on 25.02.2014.

2.3 On the intervening night of 26/27.04.2014, the vehicle was stolen and upon intimation of the theft being given to the police, FIR No.427 dated 05.05.2014 under Section 379 IPC, against unknown person was registered.

2.4 Thereafter, permanent registration No.HR-24P/5756 was assigned to the vehicle and the registration certificate dated 28.04.2014 (Annexure P-2) was issued, which is valid upto 24.02.2029.

2.5 The appellant lodged a claim with the respondent insurance company based on the untraced report given by the police authorities. The insurance claim of the appellant was repudiated by the insurance company on the ground that the terms and conditions of the insurance policy (Annexure P-1) had been violated, inasmuch as during the currency of temporary registration, which was valid only for 30 days, no application for permanent registration of the vehicle had been made; and the incident of theft has taken place after the expiry of the temporary registration certificate and before an application for permanent registration could have been made.

3. The appellant, aggrieved by the repudiation of his insurance claim, filed a petition under Section 22-C of the Act of 1987 for settlement of dispute arising from the insurance policy (Annexure P-1) and the claim made thereunder, with regard to the reported theft of the vehicle, which led to registration of supra FIR. The PLA (PUS), dismissed the said petition, vide award dated 15.02.2016 (Annexure P-6).

4. Being aggrieved, the appellant invoked jurisdiction by way of civil writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, which was assigned No.CWP-13296-2016.

4.1 The supra writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment dated 20.07.2016, while referring to the statutory provisions contained under Sections 39 and 43 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity ‘MV Act’), and placing reliance upon the decision in Narinder Singh vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. and others, (2014) 9 SCC 324

5. Still aggrieved, the appellant has assailed the judgment dated

20.07.2016 through the instant letters patent appeal.

5.1 Upon notice of the appeal, respondent No.2 entered appearance through counsel and has opposed the same, while defending the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge as well as that by the PLA (PUS). Respondent No.1 [PLA (PUS)] is a proforma respondent. The financial institution (respondent No.3) that had issued the loan for the purpose of purchase of the vehicle, was ordered