Civil Writ Petition No. 19246 of 2009 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Civil Writ Petition No. 19246 of 2009 Date of Decision: 15.12.2009 Reliance General Insurance Company Limited …Petitioner Versus Jitender Kumar and Another …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Paras Money Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) Reliance General Insurance Company Limited has assailed order passed by Permanent Lok Adalat on 6.10.2009 (Annexure P1). Respondent No.1 had insured his vehicle Tavera No. HR-55-GT-7802 with the petitioner and had obtained a legal policy. The policy was valid till 26.2.2009 and the insurance value was Rs.6,53,147/-. On 7.1.2009, vehicle was stolen by some persons from Dwarka, New Delhi. On the very next day, on 8.1.2009, a Daily Diary Report No. 3A was lodged by the owner of the vehicle who had insured the vehicle. Daily Diary Report was converted into FIR No. 19 on 14.1.2009. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon condition No.5 of the insurance policy, which read as under:- “Condition No. 5: The insured shall take all reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle from loss Civil Writ Petition No. 19246 of 2009 2 or damage and to maintain it in efficient condition and the Company shall have at all times free and full access to examine the vehicle or any part thereof or any driver or employee of the insured. In the event of any accident or breakdown, the vehicle shall not be left unattended without proper precautions being taken to prevent further damage or loss and if the vehicle be driven before the necessary repairs are effected any extension of the damage or any further damage to the vehicle shall be entirely at the insured's own risk”. Permanent Lok Adalat adjudicated upon the dispute under Section 22C(8) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. The contention raised by the petitioner before the Permanent Lok Adalat was that the driver had left the key in ignition switch, when he stepped out for urinating and had given lift to unknown persons. Therefore, it was said to be negligence on the part of the driver as the insurer had not taken reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle. What general steps to safeguard the vehicle are to be taken into consideration from the view point of a prudent man, is the test which is to be applied to determine the controversy. It cannot be said that the conduct of the insurer was one of a careless person. However, Permanent Lok Adalat passed the award on the agreement expressed by counsel for the insurer, taking into consideration plea that the policy holder should not be allowed to escape unpunished and applied 25% cut. From the tenor of the order, it is apparent that after the contentions Civil Writ Petition No. 19246 of 2009 3 were noticed, agreement of counsel was recorded to accept 25% cut of the insured declared value. The order of Permanent Lok Adalat suffer from no patent illegality. Therefore, no interference is warranted and the present writ petition is dismissed. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge December 15, 2009 “DK”