- (1.) The writ petition is a frivolous attempt on the part of the Insurance Company to avoid the liability for an award which is passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat. The petitioner before the court below, who had lost his vehicle by alleged theft, had lodged a complaint with the police 7 days after the incident took place on 14.06.2013 and the Insurance Company itself was informed subsequently on 25.06.2013 about the theft. The principal defence was that the contractual terms dictated the fact of theft is to be informed immediately and a complaint to the police after 7 days of the incident and 11 days after the incident to the Insurance Company was, therefore, contrary to the contractual terms and the Insurance Company was justified in repudiating the liability. The Permanent Lok Adalat rejected the defence and also distinguished the particular case which the Insurance Company was relying on, namely, the National Insurance Company Limited v. State of Haryana and others, 2013 1 RCR(Civ) 434 and held that the facts in this case were clearly distinguishable to the case cited by the Insurance Company. The counsel argues with vehemence and passion that the Insurance Company had even served notice to the petitioner to explain the delay in lodging a complaint to the police but it was not responded to. The factual distinction of what the Permanent Lok Adalat was attempting to the decision cited simply did not exist. The counsel would, therefore, seek for reversal of the decision.
(2.) The Legal Services Authority Act makes final the decision of the Permanent Lok Adalat must be understood in such a way that unless there is a patently wrong approach or a perverse appreciation of facts brought before it, there is no scope for intervention in a writ petition. If the complainant was explaining his relative delay in lodging a complaint to the fact that he had immediately informed the Insurance Company on the same day of the loss of the vehicle by lodging a complaint through the toll free number to the Insurance Company at 18002666 through his mobile number 9416229370 on the date of the theft itself, then he was placing an important evidence of what he was contending. If this factual detail was required to be repudiated, it could have been done through the phone call log that ought to have been maintained by the Insurance Company at that toll free call number. It is before the forum which was considering the factual detail that was required to be furnished with the appropriate information. Further, if the complainant was explaining also the delay by stating that the police which heard him on the complaint stated that they will set up an enquiry and then inform and that the petitioner caused no delay by himself, but the police did not register a complaint immediately and waited for nearly a week when they turned up with the reply when it was not traceable when they took a complaint on record, it has more to do with the manner in which complaints are treated some times by the police. It is ultimately the perception of the police that some times dictate how a complaint from member of public is treated. Their own sense of urgency and the police view of what should take immediate attention are the realities that we will have to cope with. If the petitioner had an explanation about how the police dealt his complaint and that it was lodged only later and the Permanent Lok Adalat accepted that, the issue becomes a question of whether the Permanent Lok Adalat could be accepted such an explanation from the complainant. If there are two views possible on a situation on whether such a complaint could have been accepted or not and if the Permanent Lok Adalat had decided to accept the same, I find no reason to supplant my own reasoning or the Insurance Company's passionate plea to substitute the reasoning of Permanent Lok Adalat.
(3.) The Permanent Lok Adalat was still justified in passing award and if it had also punished the Insurance Company for mental pain and suffering which the complainant had suffered by the Insurance Company dragging its feet and not setting the claim for theft of vehicle, I will again see no reason to reward the Insurance Company with a notice for a full-fledged adjudication of what is otherwise purely factual and what is impossible for this court to entertain. The writ petition is dismissed on the above observations.;