##PAGE1##

[2026:RJ-JP:14445]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18939/2025

Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Through Its Branch Manager, Yash Tower, Bajaj Road, Sikar, Tehsil And District Sikar.

----Petitioner Versus

Dharma Ram Son Of Chola Ram, Aged About 51 Years, Resident Of Gram Basni Saija, Tehsil - Merta City, District Nagaur, Presently Residing At Behind Hero Honda Agency, Jaipur Road,

Sikar, Tehsil And District Sikar.

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Firoz Akhtar Ansari Ms. Nistha Jain for

Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singhal For Respondent(s) :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

Judgment

07/04/2026

1. The present petition has been filed against the award dated 19.09.2025, whereby an award of Rs.7,50,000/- with additional

litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- has been passed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted the impugned order is passed by Permanent Lok Adalat. It is fairly conceded by the learned counsel that tractor was attached to a thresher which was not insured and the accident occurred on account of usage of thresher which was not part of the insurance cover. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal has not dealt the

plea of the petitioner in appropriate manner.

3. Heard and perused the award order.

(Uploaded on 10/04/2026 at 04:06:44 PM)

(Downloaded on 24/04/2026 at 10:52:04 PM)

[2026:RJ-JP:14445] (2 of 6) [CW-18939/2025] 4. This Court upon hearing the contentions put forth by the learned counsel, and upon scanning the material available on record, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the instant matter,

for the reasons noted hereinbelow:

2.1 That the scope of interference is minuscule and need to invoke the writ or extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court is limited. It is opined that in order to invoke such jurisdiction under constitutional provisions, warrants apparent malafides, arbitrariness and illegality. The said view is substantiated from the ratio encapsulated in Life Insurance Corpn. of India and ors. v. Asha Goel (Smt.) and another: (2001) 2 SCC 160, relevant

extract from which is reproduced as under:

"10. Article 226 of the Constitution confers extraordinary jurisdiction on the High Court to issue high prerogative writs for enforcement of the fundamental rights or for any other purpose. It is wide and expansive. The Constitution does not place any fetter on exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction. It is left to the discretion of the High Court Therefore, it cannot be laid down as a general proposition of law that in no case the High Court can entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution to enforce a claim under a life insurance policy. It is neither possible nor proper to enumerate exhaustively the circumstances in which such a claim can or cannot be enforced by filing a writ petition. The determination of the question depends on consideration of several factors like, whether a writ petitioner is merely attempting to enforce his/her contractual rights or the case raises important questions of law and constitutional issues, the nature of the dispute raised; the nature of inquiry necessary for determination of

(Uploaded on 10/04/2026 at 04:06:44 PM)

(Downloaded on 24/04/2026 at 10:52:04 PM)

[2026:RJ-JP:14445] (3 of 6) [CW-18939/2025]

the dispute etc. The matter is to be considered in the facts and circumstances of each case. While the jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be denied altogether, courts must bear in mind the self- imposed restriction consistently followed by High Courts all these years after the constitutional power came into existence in not entertaining writ petitions filed for enforcement of purely contractual rights and obligations which involve disputed questions of facts. The courts have consistently taken the view that in a case where for determination of the dispute raised, it is necessary to inquire into facts for determination of which