IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 4426 of 2009. Date of Decision: 20th March, 2009. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.....Petitioner through Mr. P.M.Goyal, Advocate Versus Ram Kumar & Anr. ...Respondent through CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL) The petitioner is aggrieved at the order dated 24.11.2008 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat [Public Utility Service], Gurgaon whereby the respondent's complaint for the non-payment of Insurance Claim has been accepted and the petitioner has been directed to make the payment of Rs.2,14,047/- including labour charges, VAT and tax, within one month, failing which the amount is liable to be paid with interest @12% per annum. Briefly stated, the facts are that the respondent is owner of Vehicle No. HR26AE-9477 which he got insured with the petitioner for the period 31.7.2007 to 30.7.2008. The vehicle met with an accident on 20.8.2007. The accident was reported to the petitioner Company, who sent its surveyor and after conducting the survey, the vehicle was taken to the authorized Workshop – M/s Orient Automobiles Limited, Gurgaon. The respondent paid a sum of Rs.2,85,000/- to the said Workshop towards the repair charges. As the petitioner Company refused to indemnify the insurance claim, the respondent moved an application before the Permanent Lok Adalat [Public Utility Service]. Admittedly, no one put in appearance on behalf of the petitioner before the Permanent Lok Adalat despite repeated notices served upon it. This fact is writ large from the following observations made by the Permanent Lok Adalat:- “Notice of the application was given to the respondent for 4.7.08 and it was served upon the respondent on 10.6.08 but none appeared on the date of hearing. So the notice was again served upon the respondent but despite personal service for 6.8.08 again none turned up. Service through registered notice was also effected but the respondent failed to appear. The application remained pending for 7-8 further adjournments but the respondent made no appearance. So the application is being decided on the basis of the evidence furnished by the applicant”. In the absence of a settlement, the learned Lok Adalat proceeded to decide the respondent's claim on merits in terms of Section 22[c] of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. Though, the petitioner remained unrepresented, nevertheless the Lok Adalat took into consideration its defence plea taken in the repudiation letter and arrived at the following factual conclusion:- “As regards the plea that the vehicle was already in damaged condition before the start of insurance contract, there is no force in it. The vehicle with the registration certificate, engine and chassis number is examined before the IDV is fixed and policy is issued. In the registration certificate all the details of the vehicle are mentioned. In the insurance card the registration No. is mentioned. It was not possible that the policy like that the policy was obtained by showing other vehicle or for already damaged vehicle. If they issue policies like that they should thank there stars. The next objection of the company is that the vehicle was removed from the spot without the approval of the respondent. In the application also is not mentioned that the surveyor visited the spot and the spot survey was conducted. Again in the application it is not mentioned how the respondent was informed i.e. By letter or telephone or by fax message. So there is substance in the version of the insurance company that the spot survey could not be made as the vehicle was removed before allowing the spot survey”. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the impugned award and other material on record, I am of the considered view that no interference in the firm findings of fact returned by the Permanent Lok Adalat which are based upon correct appreciation of the documents on record, is called for by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. Dismissed. March 20, 2009. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE