Ritu Bahri, J. - (1.) THE petitioner has approached this Court by way of instant writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari for setting aside the award dated 17.02.2011 (P -4) passed by respondent No. 2. Jagjit Singh -respondent No. 1 had purchased a vehicle Scorpio DX bearing registration No. PB -10CB -5174, Engine No. 74D35595, Chassis No. 72D76642, Colour Black Model 2007 by financing it from Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. Respondent No. 1 availed insurance for the above said vehicle from the petitioner -company vide policy No. 360100/21/07/0100000468 valid from 6.6.2007 to mid night 5.6.2008 and paid premium for the said policy. However, on 28.09.2007, friend of respondent No. 1 Mr. Davinder Singh @ Billa requested respondent No. 1 to give him vehicle and as respondent No. 1 was having cordial relation with said Davinder Singh, he handed over the said vehicle to him. The said vehicle was stolen by one person namely Parshant. The matter was report to the police and F.I.R. No. 265 dated 29.09.2007 u/s. 328/420/379 I.P.C. registered at P.S. Divn. No. 5, Ludhiana. The respondent No. 1 then lodged the claim with the petitioner -company on account of theft of the above said vehicle with was insured with the petitioner -company. However, respondent No. 1 received letter dated 9.1.2009 from the petitioner -company vide which it has been alleged that the vehicle was used for commercial purpose in contradiction to its registration as well as insurance policy which are issued for private vehicle and the claim of respondent No. 1 was repudiated by alleging reference to "Limitation as to. Use" clause. On notice of the application, the Insurance Company filed a written statement before the L.A. on and under preliminary objection stated that the application is not maintainable in the present form. The claim was denied as respondent No. 1 had violated the terms and conditions of the Insurance. He was plying the vehicle for hire and reward against limitation as to use the vehicle. The vehicle was got insured as private car but the same was plied for commercial purposes. Initially, the Lok Adalat held that the disputed question of facts could be gone into by the Civil Court after providing due opportunities to the parties to lead their respective defence. The Lok Adalat has no jurisdiction to decide the facts of the case. However during the course of the proceedings of the case before the Lok Adalat, it was held that as per the requirement of the provisions of Sub -section 7 of 22 -C of Chapter VI -A of the Legal Services Authorities Act (for short 1 the Act) opportunities to compromise and settle the dispute between the parties were afforded but inspite of availing numerous opportunities, the compromise between the parties for the settlement of dispute in question could not be arrived at. At this stage, the Lok Adalat proceeded with the case finding no other alternative as per Sub -Section 8 of Section 22 -C of the Act. As per the report of the Investigator (Ex. R -5), the vehicle was being used for commercial purpose which was against the terms of the policy. The vehicle was used for hire and reward as taxi. During investigation, Davinder Singh admitted that he used to call the above said vehicle for use as a taxi from respondent No. 1 and the said vehicle was sent for commercial purpose to one Parshant Namdev. However, the Permanent Lok Adalat has referred to the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in a case of Amalendu Sahoo v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., : A.I.R. 2010 S.C. 2090 : (2010) 4 S.C.C. 536 wherein vehicle met with an accident and plea of insurance company was that vehicle was given on hire and as per the policy terms such use was not permitted. However, the Insurance Company was directed to pay Rs. 2.50 lacs. In paragraph 12 of the judgment, it has been held as unde: - "12. Reference in this case may be made to the decision of National Commission rendered in the case of United India Insurance Company Limited v. Gian Singh,, 2006 C.T.J. 221 (C.P.) (NCDRC). In that decision of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) it has been held that in a case of violation of condition of the policy as to the nature of use of the vehicle, the claim ought to be settled on a non -standard basis. The said decision of the National Commission has been referred to by this Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Nitin Khandelwal, : 2008 (7) SCALE 351. In paragraph 13 of the judgment, in the case of Nitin Khandelwal (supra) this Court held: - "..The appellant Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle when the insurer has obtained comprehensive policy for the loss caused to the insurer. The respondent submitted that even assuming that there was a breach of condition of the insurance policy, the appellant Insurance Company ought to have settled the claim on nonstandard basis."
(2.) IN the present case, it is not disputed by the Insurance Company that respondent No. 1 had insured his vehicle with the petitioner -company from 6.6.2007 to mid night 5.6.2008 and paid premium for the said policy. Even if the vehicle was being used as Taxi as per report of Investigator (R -5), the Insurance Company was liable to give the claim on non -standard basis, as held by the Permanent Lok Adalat (P.U.S.) Ludhiana, vide award dated 17.02.2011, which requires no interference from this Court. The petition is dismissed.;