Ritu Bahri, J. - (1.) CHALLENGE in this petition is to the order/Award dated 29.06.2012 (Annexure P -1) passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Ambala -respondent No. 2, whereby petitioner -company has been directed to pay Rs. 3,65,000/ - as compensation at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of institution of the petition till payment, to the applicant -respondent No. 1. Ved Pal -respondent No. 1 made an application under Section 22 -C of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987, before the Permanent Lok Adalat, Gurgaon, stating that he is registered owner of a tractor Mahindra 295 DI Turbo, bearing registration No. HR -07 -M -9639. The said vehicle was insured with Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. -petitioner through its agent No. 19000364 at Kurukshetra. Respondent No. 1 paid a sum of Rs. 6058/ - on 20.01.2010 and a cover note No. 40692500 was issued to him by the aforesaid agent of the petitioner -company. The aforesaid tractor was stolen from the Bathak at village Sanwla, District Kurukshetra. In this regard, FIR No. 47 dated 03.02.2010, under Section 380 IPC was got lodged at Police Station Sadar, Thanesar. The information regarding theft of vehicle was given to the petitioner -company as well as its agent and all the relevant documents were also submitted. Order regarding acceptance of untraced report was received on 06.07.2011 from the Court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra. The untraced report was sent to the petitioner -company by way of notice dated 12.07.2011 along with copy of FIR, RC, driving licence etc., but the insurance company refused to pay any amount.
(2.) THE claim of respondent No. 1 was resisted by the petitioner company on the ground that there was violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Before the Permanent Lok Adalat, efforts for conciliation were made, but could not succeed. The Permanent Lok Adalat, after going through the facts and circumstances of the case, passed the impugned Award (Annexure P -1).
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner -company has argued that under Section 22(C) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, jurisdiction of the Permanent Lok Adalat was restricted to amicable settlement between the parties. The offence under Section 380 IPC was non -compoundable, therefore, the Permanent Lok Adalat did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the matter in view of Section 22(C)(1) of the Act. In this regard, he has referred to a judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ajay Sinha and another, : 2009 (1) RCR (Civil) 726.;