##PAGE1##

[2026:RJ-JP:14249]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6084/2026

1. I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, Shri Siddhi Vinayak Ganpati Mandir, I.c.i.c.i Lombard House, 414, P. Baloo Marg, A.v.s Road, Prabhadevi, Mumbai (Maharashtra) - 400025 Through The Managing

Director

2. I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, 10Th Floor, Unit No. 1003 To 1008, Signature Tower, Dc - 2, Lalkothi Scheme, District Shopping Centre, Tonk Road, Jaipur - 302015 Through Branch Manager Both Through

Their Constituted Attorney ----Petitioners

Versus Smt. Santosh Devi Meena W/o Late Shri Duli Chand Meena,

Resident House No.-11, Type -1, Mansarovar, Jaipur - 302020 ----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prakhar Agarwal with Mr. Santosh Kumar Saini For Respondent(s) :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

Order

07/04/2026

1. The present petition is filed against the impugned order dated 20.01.2026, passed by Permanent Lok Adalat, whereby the petitioner herein was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 4,63,521/- within a period of 2 months, from the date of passing of order alongwith an interest of 7% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint, till the date of payment as well as a sum of Rs. 31,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs. 21,000/- as litigation expenses to the respondent-claimant herein, failing which the entire amount shall be payable with an interest of 9%

per annum until realization.

2. This Court upon hearing the contentions put forth by the learned counsel, and upon scanning the material available on

(Uploaded on 10/04/2026 at 10:55:05 AM)

(Downloaded on 24/04/2026 at 11:15:33 PM)

[2026:RJ-JP:14249] (2 of 6) [CW-6084/2026] 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 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

(Uploaded on 10/04/2026 at 10:55:05 AM)

(Downloaded on 24/04/2026 at 11:15:33 PM)

[2026:RJ-JP:14249] (3 of 6) [CW-6084/2026]

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 disput