[2026:RJ-JP:12496]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18810/2023 Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd., Office At Sanwaria Tower 6, Kailash Colony, Near Bhagat Singh Circle, Alwar Insurer Of Vehicle Tempo Registration No. Rj-02-Ga-4246, Insurance Policy No. 106007/31/22/002366, Insurance Period Dated 04.08.2021 To 03.08.2022, Having Its Registered Office At E-8, Epip, Riico Industrial Area, Sitapura, Jaipur - 302022 Through Its Constituted Attorney.

----Petitioner-Non-applicant Versus Kallu Khan S/o Shri Baniya Khan, Aged About 52 Years, R/o Gram Pahada, Kithur Tehsil And District Alwar.

----Respondent-Applicant For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rishipal Agarwal HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA

Order

25/03/2026

1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with a challenge to the impugned judgment dated 31.07.2023 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Services), Alwar (Raj.) in Case No.314/2022, whereby the application filed by the applicant/respondent was partly allowed and the petitioner- insurance company was ordered to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- to the applicant/respondent within a period of 60 days alongwith interest @7% per annum from the date of filing of the application i.e. on 19.07.2022 and also ordered to pay Rs.1,000/- as litigation cost.

2. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that the order of law. It is also submitted that the applicant/respondent sold the subject vehicle to one Satyapal Jadoun and the possession of the same was also handed over and therefore, the applicant cannot claim compensation after theft of the vehicle. Another submission of counsel for the petitioner is that the vehicle-in-question was hypothecated to one finance company which has not been impleaded as party to the application.

3. Considered the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner and also perused the impugned judgment passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat.

4. On theft of a vehicle, the registered owner of the vehicle is entitled for compensation from the insurance company. At the time of theft, the vehicle was registered in the name of applicant/respondent, hence, the petitioner/insurance company cannot deny compensation to the registered owner of the vehicle- in-question and the Permanent Lok Adalat has rightly observed that applicant/respondent being the registered owner of the vehicle-in-question is entitled for compensation.

5. As far as hypothecation of the vehicle with the finance company is concerned, it is transaction between the vehicle owner and the finance company. If there is any dues of the finance company towards the vehicle-in-question, the finance company could claim the dues from the registered owner and on the count, the finance company has not been arrayed as party respondent. The insurance company cannot deny its liability to pay compensation to the registered owner.

6. After having gone through the material available on record, the Court finds no illegality or perversity in the impugned dismissed being devoid of merit.

7. In view of the order passed in the main petition, the stay application as well as pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.

(GANESH RAM MEENA),J Ashish Kumar /9