C.R. No.1962 of 2009 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.1962 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: January 18, 2010. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. ...Petitioner(s) v. Deenu & Anr. ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Shri D.P. Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri B.S. Tewatia, Advocate, for the respondent. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. (Oral): The petitioner – insurance company has filed the instant revision petition challenging the impugned order dated 4.11.2008, Annexure P-5, whereby the Permanent Lok Adalat has passed an award in favour of the respondent for a sum of Rs.46,603/- towards damage to the vehicle in question. As per the averments, the respondents filed an application for settlement of their claim before the Permanent Lok Adalat, Public Utility Services, Gurgaon claiming that they were owners of tractor No.HR-52A- 2428 which was insured with the petitioner. The said vehicle met with a road-side accident and got damaged. As per the averments, the respondents intimated the petitioner regarding the accident and thereafter petitioner C.R. No.1962 of 2009 -: 2 :- appointed a surveyor. The respondents got the tractor repaired and spent Rs.1,20,000/-. The petitioner did not pay the claim causing financial loss to the respondents. The Permanent Lok Adalat allowed the aforesaid application of the respondents and issued directions to the petitioner to pay Rs.46,603/-, as assessed by the surveyor, within a period of one month from the date of order failing which the petitioner was also liable to pay interest @ 12% per annum from the date of order. Challenging the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the impugned order cannot be sustained as the “own damage” to the vehicle was not covered and the vehicle was insured against “third party risk” only. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. It is not disputed that the vehicle in question was insured only for 'third party risks' and it was not insured for “own damage” to the vehicle. Moreover, while passing the impugned order, the Permanent Lok Adalat has considered the alleged report of the surveyor wrongly as the aforesaid surveyor was not appointed by the insurance company and was in fact appointed by the Punjab National Bank, Mandkola to assess the loss of the vehicle in question. It is well settled that the petitioner can be asked to indemnify the loss to the insured only as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Admittedly, in this case, “own damage” to the vehicle was not covered under the policy and only “third party risk” was covered. Thus, amount as awarded by the Permanent Lok Adalat was not payable to the respondents by the petitioner company. Therefore, the impugned order C.R. No.1962 of 2009 -: 3 :- cannot be sustained and the same is hereby set aside. Revision petition is allowed, as aforesaid. January 18, 2010. [ Rakesh Kumar Garg ] kadyan Judge