IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.19123 of 2009 Date of Decision : November 08, 2010. Oriental Insurance Company Limited .....Petitioner versus Presiding Officer, Permanent Lok Adalat and another .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Akshay Bhan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Vishal Gupta, Advocate, for Mr.Sandeep Jasuja, Advocate, for the respondents. -.- 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 petitoner-Insurance Company is aggrieved by the Award dated 7.7.2009 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Ferozepur, whereby claim of the second respondent for recovery of Rs.8,29,000/- towards the loss/damages caused to the Toyota Innova vehicle has been accepted alongwith interest @ 12% per annum with a further direction that the amount of interest shall be proportionately fastened upon the Heads of the offices at Branch, Divisional, Regional and Head Office level. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner-Insurance company that the claim of respondent No.2 was never rejected and was being processed though there was some unavoidable delay in settling the claim as the vehicle was still not registered. It is explained that there was no deliberate or motivated delay in settling the claim. C.W.P.No .19123 of 2009 2 Having heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and on perusal of the records, I am of the considered view that the impugned award, to the extent of acceptance of the claim of respondent No.2 for the recovery of Rs.8,29,000/-, warrants no interference by this Court. It stands proved beyond any doubt that the vehicle was duly insured and it did meet with an accident on 29.10.2007. The Surveyor of the petitioner-Insurance Company himself assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.8,29,000/-. The said firm finding of fact does not call for any interference by a writ court. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has no serious objection for the modification of the impugned award to the extent the learned Lok Adalat has burdened the officers of the petitioner-Company personally with interest and costs liability. The writ petition is accordingly allowed in part to the extent that respondent No.2 shall be entitled to interest @ 7% per annum on the amount of Rs.8,29,000/- which shall be payable by the petitioner-company only and not by its officers personally. Since the petitioner-company has already deposited the awarded amount in a fixed deposit in compliance to the order dated December 11, 2009 passed by this Court, the Permanent Lok Adalat shall be at liberty to release the due amount to respondent No.2 at the earliest but not later than one month from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. Dasti. November 08, 2010 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE