Dismissed

Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Limited v. Rameshwar Goswami Son of Shri Chhotulal

Rajasthan HC3 Sept 2020CW/9082/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the insurance company challenged an order of the Permanent Lok Adalat directing payment of an insurance claim damages the court found no illegality or jurisdictional error and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed, upholding the order of the Permanent Lok Adalat directing payment of the claim.

Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Limited Vs… — Banking and Recovery | Rajasthan HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9082/2020

¶3

Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Limited, Having Its Corporate Office At Plot No. El-94, Ttc Industrial Area, Midc, Mahape, Navi Mumbai Through Its Constituted Attorney.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Rameshwar Goswami Son Of Shri Chhotulal, Aged About 25 Years, Resident Of Baran Road, Khanpur, District Jhalawar, Pin 326038

¶7

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jugal Kishore For Respondent(s) :

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

¶9

Judgment/Order

¶10

03/09/2020

¶11

The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Jhalawar dated 27.01.2020 whereby the Permanent Lok Adalat has allowed the petition filed by the claimant as against the Insurance Company and directed the petitioner-Insurance Company to make payment for the loss caused to the vehicle for a sum of Rs. 1,37,670/- along with the interest @ 7% from 15.03.2019.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that several letters were sent to the claimant for providing details relating to the accident, but the same were not provided and, therefore, the claim of the claimant was repudiated as no claim.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Permanent Lok Adalat has granted the amount on the basis of the

¶14

(2 of 3)

¶15

[CW-9082/2020]

¶16

bills submitted by the claimant which were not authenticated and, therefore, the claim could not have been allowed.

¶17

I have considered the submissions.

¶18

This Court finds that the petitioner admitted that the vehicle was insured with them and it is also an admitted position that vehicle Truck Bearing Registration No.RJ 17 GA 2692 had been damaged on account of overturning due to breakage of the steering rod on 26.02.2018 and the petitioner company was intimated about the said accident on 27.02.2018 through its agent and the company had also registered a claim on the same day.

¶19

However, this Court notices that before the Permanent Lok Adalat, Jhalawar, the petitioner company has doubted the date of accident and also has refused to grant the claim on the ground that there were no document produced relating to the alleged accident. The claimant had from the initial point itself come out with the case that the accident which occurred did not cause any loss to third party and, therefore, police did not register any FIR and, therefore, there could not have been any document relating to the accident.

¶20

As regards the veracity of bills, the same is a factual aspect which has already been noticed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, therefore, the same does not further require to be examined in the writ jurisdiction.

¶21

This Court, thus, is satisfied with the findings arrived at by the learned Permanent Lok Adalat that the basis of denying the claim is not made out as the relevant documents relating to registration, Insurance Bills repairs and photographs of the truck which had overturned, were all produced and there was no other

¶22

(3 of 3)

¶23

[CW-9082/2020]

¶24

document required additionally for the purpose of releasing of the claim.

¶25

Frivolous attempt has been made by the Insurance Company not to release the claim amount. Such approach of the Insurance Company in a matter where the concerned claimant has been vigilant and had informed the Insurance Company in time is depricated. Thus, the amount ought to have been released in favour of the claimant and the order passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, therefore, does not warrant any interference.

¶26

No illegality can be said to have been committed nor any jurisdictional error can be said to have been committed by the concerned Permanent Lok Adalat.

¶27

The writ petition is thus, accordingly dismissed.

¶28

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J

¶29

SAURABH YADAV/NITIN/24

Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Limited v. Rameshwar Goswami Son of Shri Chhotulal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Limited v. Rameshwar Goswami Son of Shri Chhotulal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Bharat Mineral and Chemical Industries Vs Rajasthan Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (Msefc)

Bane Singh S/O Late Shri Bhanwar Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Ashish Lodha Son of Mr. Ashok Lodha Vs Indira Ivf Hospital Private Limited

Lavkesh S/O Shri Mahendra Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Pappu Ram Raiger S/O Shri Chander Raiger Vs the State of Rajasthan

Khohra Choun Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Samiti Limited Vs the State of Rajasthan