CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 17072 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 17072 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION: APRIL 28, 2011 Reliance General Insurance Company Limtited .....Petitioner VERSUS Tarun Aggarwal 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. Subhash Goyal, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.1. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner-Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. has filed this writ petition to challenge the order dated 8.7.2010 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services). Tarun Aggarwal had filed a complaint at pre- litigation stage before the Permanent Lok Adalat seeking direction for payment of ` 2,5,852/- on account of a claim of the damaged vehicle due to an accident. The TATA car bearing Registration No.HR-55-DT-8239 was duly registered. The vehicle was got insured from the petitioner-Insurance Company comprehensively. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 17072 of 2010 -2- While the vehicle was driven by Harpal Singh Driver, it met with an accident with a truck, which was going ahead to it. Accident happened, when the truck suddenly applied brake and the car rammed into the truck. The accidented vehicle was got surveyed by the petitioner-Company by deputing surveyor, who assessed the damages and gave the report that the claim of ` 1,39,000/- would be due to the respondent-owner. The claim, however, still was repudiated and the respondents had approached the Forum. The submission that licence produced by the driver was found to be fake, is immaterial as the driver was given employment on the basis of a licence, which was not got verified by the Insurance Company. The fact remains that driver Harpal Singh is having a valid driving licence and in that view of the matter, the petitioner- Company was not justified to deny the claim. Otherwise also I do not find any valid or justifiable reason to interfere in the impugned order. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. April 28, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) monika JUDGE