Rameshwar Singh Malik, J. - (1.) THE present writ petition is directed against the impugned order dated 11.3.2013 (Annexure P -3) passed by the learned Permanent Lok Adalat, thereby allowing the claim of respondent No. 1 -claimant awarding an amount of Rs. 2,31,900/ - on account of theft of vehicle, which was insured with the petitioner -company. To unravel the short controversy involved between the parties, brief narration of the essential facts would be required. Theft qua insured vehicle took place on 11.2.2011 and without any loss of time, respondent -claimant lodged the FIR No. 55 dated 12.2.2011 at police station Mangol Puri, under Section 379 IPC. Thus, there was no delay in lodging the FIR. However, the respondent -claimant did not simultaneously inform the petitioner -company about the incident of theft. The claimant -respondent lodged his claim on 20.5.2011 with the petitioner -company. His claim was rejected summarily on the ground that in view of the condition of the policy, claimant was bound to inform the insurance company within a period of 48 hours of the incident of theft. Since he was liable for breach of terms and conditions of the policy, he was not entitled for any claim. Having been left with no other option, the respondent -claimant approached the learned Permanent Lok Adalat under Section 22C of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. Repeated efforts were made for brining the parties to an amicable settlement. However, no settlement could be arrived at between the parties.
(2.) FACED with this situation, the learned Permanent Lok Adalat rightly proceeded further deciding the case on merits, because the petitioner -company never denied its consent for further proceedings. The claim of the respondent was partly allowed. The learned Permanent Lok Adalat rightly moulded the relief, directing deduction of 15% of the amount claimed, so as to strike a balance between the parties. Finally, the award dated 11.3.2013 (Annexure P -3) was passed directing the petitioner -company to indemnify the loss suffered by the claimant because of incident of theft wherein the insured vehicle was stolen. Hence this writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that since the respondent -claimant has violated the terms and conditions of the policy, while not informing the incident of theft to the petitioner -company within 48 hours, he was not entitled for any claim. He further submits that the petitioner -company never gave its consent before the learned Permanent Lok Adalat for deciding the case on merits. He next contended that since the claim of respondent No. 1 was totally unwarranted on the face of it, he was not entitled for even a single penny. The petitioner -company was not liable to pay any amount on account of alleged loss suffered by respondent No. 1, because of the incident of theft. To buttress his arguments, he relies upon two judgments of this Court in Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Vijay Kumar, : 2012 (1), PLR 794 and Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited Vs. Lok Adalat District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum -II and others,, 2010 20 CPC 360. He prays for setting aside the impugned award by allowing the present writ petition.
(3.) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at considerable length, after careful perusal of record of the case and giving thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised, this Court is of the considered opinion that in the given fact situation of the case, no interference is called for at the hands of this Court, while exercising its writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. To say so, reasons are more than one, which are being recorded hereinafter.;