SBCWP NO.3234/2007 –THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. V/S SH. SAHAB RAM AND ORS. : JUDGMENT DTD.12.5.2008 1/5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3234/2007 The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. versus Shri Sahab Ram and ors. PRESENT HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Mr.Jagdish Vyas, for the petitioner. Mr.Rajesh Panwar, for respondents DATE OF JUDGMENT : 12th May, 2008. JUDGMENT 1. Heard the learned counsels for the parties. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the Insurance Company against the award dtd.24.2.2007 of the Permanent Lok Adalat awarding a sum of Rs.53,974/- as compensation for accidented vehicle bearing registration No. RJ30-UA/0062. SBCWP NO.3234/2007 –THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. V/S SH. SAHAB RAM AND ORS. : JUDGMENT DTD.12.5.2008 2/5 3. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company Mr. Jagdish Vyas has submitted that the Permanent Lok Adalat has failed to consider the material on record though the specific dispute was raised by the Insurance Company that the cover note No.300954 was issued in respect of vehicle bearing Chassis No.52-C-34582, and Engine No.AC-54C-30597, whereas upon inspection of the vehicle, the Insurance Surveyor found different chassis number which was 52C34570 and engine No. AC54C30601 and therefore, according to him, the vehicle which was found to be accidented and surveyed by the competent officer was different from the one for which aforesaid cover note was issued by the Insurance Company. He also submitted that besides filing affidavit of Development Officer Mr. K.K. Chaudhary before the Permanent Lok Adalat in this regard, Insurance Company also applied on 9.2.2007 to the said Permanent Lok Adalat to summon the record in respect of both the vehicles from the concerned DTO in question to verify as to whether the same vehicle which was insured by the petitioner – company was accidented or not and whether the claim was being given for the same vehicle or not. He also submitted that the respondent No.2 Finance Company of the said vehicle had also submitted in its reply that the vehicle in SBCWP NO.3234/2007 –THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. V/S SH. SAHAB RAM AND ORS. : JUDGMENT DTD.12.5.2008 3/5 question was changed by the claimant as there was some dispute between him and the dealer and this fact was not informed to the Insurance Company. 4. These submissions are opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents on the ground that it was duty of the Insurance Company to have verified by tracing of the chassis and engine number of the vehicle in question before issuing cover note and once they had issued cover note, they were responsible to make good the compensation awarded by the Permanent Lok Adalat. 5. Having considered the rival submissions, this Court is of the opinion that when nature of the dispute raised by the Insurance Company before the Permanent Lok Adalat was involving the very question of identity of the vehicle in question, the Permanent Lok Adalat should have fully satisfied itself about the identity of the vehicle in question. There was no good reason to reject the application of the Insurance Company as has been done by the Permanent Lok Adalat in para 9 to summon the relevant record of both the vehicles in question from the concerned Registering SBCWP NO.3234/2007 –THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. V/S SH. SAHAB RAM AND ORS. : JUDGMENT DTD.12.5.2008 4/5 Authority, namely, the Dist. Transport Officer. Since both the parties submitted contradictory record, it was duty of the concerned Lok Adalat to have given its categoric finding after summoning relevant record that the vehicle in question found to be accidented was the same for which cover note was issued by the petitioner – Insurance Company. It is needless to say that the contract of Insurance is a contract of utmost faith and it is the duty of the insured to inform the Insurance Company of the relevant facts including any change of the vehicle etc. From the nature of dispute obtaining in the present case, it appears that something was missing about the identity of the vehicle in question and the Permanent Lok Adalat rather hurriedly passed the award in question. 6. Therefore, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned award of the Permanent Lok Adalat dtd.24.2.2007 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the said Permanent Lok Adalat for deciding the same afresh in accordance with law after summoning the relevant records from the concerned Government Departments. The petitioner – insurance company shall also submit the original record of the insurance in this regard before the Permanent Lok Adalat. The SBCWP NO.3234/2007 –THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. V/S SH. SAHAB RAM AND ORS. : JUDGMENT DTD.12.5.2008 5/5 Permanent Lok Adalat may also summon relevant record from other concerned parties in this regard. The said Permanent Lok Adalat is directed to decide the case within a period of three months from today. 6. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed with aforesaid directions. No order as to costs. (Dr.VINEET KOTHARI)J. Item No.49 Ss/-