IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.15621 of 2011 Date of Decision : October 12, 2011. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. .....Petitioner versus Chandni Devi and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.R.S.Dhull, Advocate, for the petitioner. -.- 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 petitioner-Insurance Company is aggrieved by the Award dated 3.6.2011 passed by the Permanent Lak Adalat (Public Utility Services), Ludhiana, granting a sum of Rs.one lac with 6% p.a. interest to respondent Nos.1 & 2 on the basis of a Personal Accident Claim Insurance Policy issued by the petitioner insuring 3rd party claim qua eight un-named passengers traveling in Toyota Innova V Diesel Car bearing registration No.PB-10BZ-9112. The admitted facts are that one Pukar Kumar, husband of the first respondent and son of respondent No.2 was one of the passengers CWP No.15621 of 2011 [2] traveling in the above stated vehicle when it met with an accident leading to the death of said Pukar Kumar. Though the dependents of the deceased- Pukar Kumar were awarded compensation by the learned Tribunal under the Motor Vehicles Act, which has been paid by the petitioner-company, they also staked claim towards the personal insurance of the un-named passengers for which a separate premium was paid to the petitioner- company. The Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Ludhiana, having found that an amount of Rs.one lac each for eight un-named passengers was duly insured towards third party liability, accepted the claim of respondent Nos.1 & 2 in part to the extent noticed above. The solitary contention raised on behalf of the petitioner- Company is that the above-stated amount has been awarded to respondent Nos.1 & 2 by the Lok Adalat even though they have never submitted their claim application to the petitioner-company. In my considered view, once the entitlement of respondent Nos.1 & 2 is not seriously in dispute and has been proved by the Permanent Lok Adalat also by a well reasoned order, the hyper-technicalities regarding non-submission of claim application by respondent Nos.1 & 2 need not come in their way for the payment of compensation amount. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with a clarification that the application/claim submitted by respondent Nos.1 & 2 before the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services) shall be deemed to be an application submitted to the petitioner-Insurance Company for all intents and purposes and let the awarded amount be consequently released in favour of CWP No.15621 of 2011 [3] respondent Nos.1 & 2 as early as possible but not later than one month from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. Ordered accordingly. Dasti. October 12, 2011 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE