Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. - (1.) The Insurance Company has challenged the order passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Gurgaon, dated 07.05.2015, by which application filed by respondent No.1 under Section 22-C of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") has been allowed.
(2.) In short, respondent No.1 purchased a Tempo bearing registration No.HR-55N-9210 and got it insured with the petitioner-company for a sum of Rs. 2,02,500/- for the period 19.08.2013 to 18.08.2014. The said Tempo was stolen on 16.10.2013 from the area of village Masani, District Rewari, for which an application was given by respondent No.1 on 17.10.2013 to the police of the Police Station Dharuhera, District Rewari, on the basis of which FIR No.436 dated 28.10.2013, under Section 379 IPC was registered at Police Station Dharuhera, District Rewari. Respondent No.1 informed the Insurance Company also regarding theft of the vehicle and submitted all necessary documents but, vide letter dated 27.08.2014, his claim was rejected. Thereafter, respondent No.1 filed an application under Section 22-C of the Act, which has been allowed by the Permanent Lok Adalat vide its order dated 07.05.2015 and hence, the present petition has been filed.
(3.) The case set up by the petitioner is that the report of theft was made to the police after 11 days and to the petitioner-company after 22 days, which is a breach of the condition of the insurance policy, in which it is provided that the insured has to intimate the Insurance Company immediately after the theft or accident, as the case may be. In support of its contention, counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. State of Haryana and others, 2013(1) R.C.R. (Civil) 434 and a Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Parvesh Chander Chadha, Civil Appeal No. 6739 of 2010, arising out of SLP(C) No. 12741 of 2010, decided on 17.08.2010 .;