MANAGING DIRECTOR Vs. PERMANENT LOK ADALAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This intra court appeal is directed against order dated 6.7.17 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby the writ petition preferred by the appellant-Insurance Company against the judgment dated 3.3.17 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Bikaner, directing the appellant-Insurance Company to pay compensation of Rs.43,898/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annuam from the date of filing of insurance claim i.e. 23.2.16 to the second respondent, has been dismissed.

(2.) The facts relevant are that the second respondent purchased a motor cycle bearing registration No.RJ-07-SB-3283 on 17.12.15 from Karan Automobile, Museum, Bikaner, which was insured with the appellant-Insurance Company. On 6.2.16, when the second respondent was going to his work place, near Durga Mandir, Patel Nagar, Bikaner, the fuel in the motor cycle exhausted. The second respondent parked the vehicle and went to fetch the fuel. When he returned back, the motor cycle was not there, it was stolen. According to the second respondent, he went to the Police Station, Jai Narayan Vyas Colony, Bikaner to lodge the FIR, however, the SHO asked him to first search the vehicle on his own. He also approached the agent of the appellant-Insurance Company, who was having his office in the premises of M/s. Kiran Automobiles, Museum Circle, Bikaner and informed about the factum of theft. Even after search being made, the motor cycle could not be traced out. Thereafter, an FIR was registered by the police on 17.2.16. After FIR being registered, the second respondent informed the appellant-Insurance Company about the incident of theft occurred on 7.2.16. In support of the claim, the second respondent produced affidavits of four persons namely, Sohanram, Likma Devi, Lalchand and Pappu Ram. The claim submitted by the second respondent was repudiated by the appellant-Insurance Company inasmuch as, the second respondent had informed the Insurance Company about the incident of theft after a lapse of 17 days. According to the Insurance Company, as the second respondent was guilty of breach of the condition of policy, the Insurance Company was not liable for the claim.

(3.) Aggrieved by the rejection of the claim by the appellant- Insurance Company, the second respondent filed an application claiming compensation before Permanent Lok Adalat under Section 22-C of Legal Services Authority Act, 1987. The application was contested by the appellant-Insurance Company by filing a reply thereto. The Permanent Lok Adalat allowed the application preferred by the second respondent and directed the appellant-Insurance Company to pay compensation to the second respondent quantified at Rs.43,898/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of insurance claim i.e. 23.2.16.