Writ petition dismissed challenging an award by the Permanent Lok Adalat. The High Court held that the insurance company failed to prove repudiation and no negligence was established, finding no reason to interfere with the award which granted compensation.
Writ petition and stay petition dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 429 / 2018
----Petitioners
Versus
Kanhaiya Lal Tak S/o Sh. Bhanwar Lal Ji Tak, R/o Raipur, Dist.Bhilwada (Raj.). Alternate Address- C/o Sh. Madan Lal Tak, Dah Ka Kheda, Debari, Tehsil- Girwa, Dist.- Udaipur.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Santosh Choudhary
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
Order
26/02/2018
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-Insurance Company being aggrieved with the award passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Udaipur dated 31.10.2017, whereby the application preferred on behalf of the respondent-Kanhaiya Lal under Section 22(B) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (for short the ‘Act of 1987’) has been accepted and the petitionerInsurance Company was directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.5,75,436/- along with the interest @ 10% per annum and further compensation of Rs.15,000/- to the respondent.
Learned counsel for the petitioner-Insurance Company has argued that as a matter of fact, the vehicle of the respondent was
(2 of 3)
[CW-429/2018]
stolen on 11.01.2012, however the first information report in respect of the said theft was filed for the first time on 16.01.2012, hence, it is clear that the respondent has not adhered to the terms and conditions of the policy, wherein it is clearly provided that FIR should be lodged immediately after theft.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner-Insurance Company repudiated the claim of the respondent on 02.10.2012, however, the respondent filed an application before the Permanent Lok Adalat under Section 22(B) of the Act of 1987 after a delay of around five years, and as such, the application filed by the respondent was beyond the period of limitation and is liable to be dismissed on this ground but the Permanent Lok Adalat, Udaipur has wrongly accepted the application filed by the respondent. It is also argued that the respondent was negligent in taking care of his vehicle and for that reason also, he is not entitled for any compensation.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner-Insurance Company and perused the impugned award.
The Permanent Lok Adalat, Udaipur has given a specific finding to the effect that though the petitioner-Insurance Company has produced a copy of the letter dated 02.10.2012 claiming that the petitioner-Insurance Company has repudiated the claim of the respondent, however, the petitioner-Insurance Company has failed to produce any proof of this effect that the said letter dated 02.10.2012 was ever sent to the respondent or the same was received by him. The Permanent Lok Adalat has also given a finding that the letter dated 02.10.2012 is said to have been
(3 of 3)
[CW-429/2018]
issued on a public holiday which is not believable.
The Permanent Lok Adalat has also taken into consideration the contention of the petitioner-Insurance Company that the respondent was negligent in taking care of his vehicle and there is inordinate delay in filing the first information report, however, the Permanent Lok Adalat is of the opinion that there is no material available on record to suggest that the respondent was negligent in taking care of his vehicle and it cannot be said that simply because the first information report of the incident was filed after four days, the respondent did not adhere to the terms and conditions of the policy.
The Permanent Lok Adalat after placing reliance on the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court and the National Consumer Forum rendered in similar types of cases has rejected the contention of the petitioner-Insurance Company.
After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner at length, I do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned award passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Udaipur.
In view of the above, this writ petition filed by the petitionerInsurance Company is dismissed.
Stay petition also stands dismissed.
(VIJAY BISHNOI),J.
Taruna
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere in the finding of facts recorded by the Permanent Lok Adalat regarding the repudiation of insurance claim and delay in filing FIR.
Whether inordinate delay in filing the First Information Report warrants invalidating the insurance claim under the policy conditions.
ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Kanhaiya Lal Tak
VIJAY BISHNOI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
