CM No.7891-CII of 2010 ::1:: and CR No.3050 of 2009 (O & M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No.7891-CII of 2010 and CR No.3050 of 2009 (O & M) Date of decision: 08.04.2010 M/s Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company .. Petitioner Versus Mal Mohammad .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI a). Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? b). To be referred to the Reporters or not ? c). Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Present:- Mr.Kamal Kant, Advocate for Mr.R.K.Bashamboo, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate for respondent-Mal Mohammad Mr.Vishal Gupta, Advocate for the applicant-Sundaram Finance Ltd. AJAY TEWARI J. (ORAL) CM No.7891-CII of 2010 For the reasons mentioned in the Civil Miscellaneous Application, same stands allowed and the applicant-Sundaram Finance Ltd. is impleaded as respondent No.2. CR No.3050 of 2009 (O & M) This petition has been filed against the order of the Public Utility Services, Permanent Lok Adalat, Gurgaon, whereby, the claim of the respondent No.1 on account of his vehicle having been stolen has been partly accepted-with a cut. This order has been challenged on the ground that the vehicle was being used for hire and reward and thus, was being used in contravention of the Policy and therefore, the repudiation of CM No.7891-CII of 2010 ::2:: and CR No.3050 of 2009 (O & M) the claim was valid. The other ground taken is that the respondent No.1 did not disclose that the vehicle had been financed by the respondent No.2. The sole case of the respondent No.2, on the other hand is that it has to take some outstanding amount from the loan which the respondent No.1 obtained from it. As regards the allegation of contravention of Policy, the Lok Adalat had noticed that whether a vehicle is being used for private purpose or hire/reward would have no relevance as far as case of theft is concerned. The Lok Adalat also noticed that the respondent No.1 was willing to forego 33 % of the amount, so that the matter would be speedily settled. It was in these circumstances that the Lok Adalat passed the award. Learned counsel has not been able to persuade me that the user of the vehicle would have such a devastating effect on the liability of the insurer. Consequently, I find no ground to interfere with the order of the Lok Adalat. The only caveat which I am making is that the money which may be deposited in the Executing Court would not be released to the respondent No.1 in the absence of the respondent No.2, which would have a claim for the outstanding amount of its own. Once the respondent No.2 is able to get this payment, it shall be bound to return all the original documents/cheques which the respondent No.1 has deposited in the Lok Adalat. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. Since the present petition has been decided, the stay application along with Civil Miscellaneous Application, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly. April 08, 2010 (AJAY TEWARI) Sukhpreet JUDGE