CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3996 OF 2011 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: MARCH 22 ,2011 Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Chandigarh .....Petitioner VERSUS Khursheed and another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner-Insurance Company has challenged the order passed by Permanent Lok Adalat Public Utility Service, Gurgaon. The insurance claim due to theft of vehicle of respondent No.1 was declined by petitioner-Insurance Company, against which respondent No.1 had approached the Lok Adalat. As per the petitioner, the insured- respondent No.1 had violated the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy and, thus, was not entitled to the claim. The objection by the Insurance Company is that the theft was not intimated within 48 hours, as provided in the policy and the CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3996 OF 2011 :{ 2 }: insured was guilty of not taking due care and caution of the vehicle. The permanent Lok Adalat, however, has allowed 75% of the claim, about which rather the insured can have some grievance. The dumper of respondent No.1 was insured for a sum of `9,45,000/- for a period of one year. This vehicle was being used for commercial purpose. While the vehicle was travelling in U.P., it was parked on the side road and duly locked. The driver and conductor went to a Hotel for taking meal. When they returned, they found the dumper missing. They accordingly informed the owner and lodged FIR on 22.4.2008. The vehicle, however, could not be recovered. Respondent No.2 accordingly approached the Insurance Company for claim on account of this theft. When the Insurance Company declined the claim, respondent No.1 has approached the Lok Adalat. To deny the claim, the Insurance Company pleads that the vehicle was left unattended on the highway by both driver and the conductor. Further plea is that the driver was not holding a valid driving licence. The Lok Adalat has viewed that the vehicle should not have been left unattended on the highway and on account of part of negligence, a cut of 25% is imposed in the claim. The other objections raised were found without basis and rightly so. The driving licence of driver has no relevance for deciding the claim. Even FIR was promptly lodged and hence, the ground that respondent No.1 had delayed in informing the petitioner is found without basis. The plea of jurisdiction of the Lok Adalat at Gurgaon was never raised earlier before the Lok Adalat but the counsel has raised this plea for the first time during the course of arguments. Since the CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3996 OF 2011 :{ 3 }: petitioner has not raised the plea of jurisdiction before the Lok Adalat, it had clearly acquiesced to the jurisdiction and so can not be permitted to raise this plea at this stage. Insurance Companies are charging hefty premium for insuring the vehicles. Once the question of liability arises, the companies resort to one technical objection and the other. These Companies really chase people and literally promise everything at the time of selling policy. It is usual to see people struggle to run after agents and surveyors to get their rightful claims. Such agents then look other way and make insurers to make rounds to Company offices. Insurers are then made to approach the Courts and are even dragged to this Court on one technical plea or the other. No one really is made to read the terms while making him to sign on the printed forms for selling policies. This attitude must change. Atleast, the Courts should not be burdened with this uncalled for litigation. I do not find any justification to interfere in the impugned award. Rather, the Lok Adalat is not apparently justified in denying the full claim to respondent No.1. There is no merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. March 22,2011 (RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE