IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.2041 of 2008 Date of Decision: 12.2.2008 Hind Motors India Limited ...Petitioner Versus Permanent Lok Adalat, Public Utility Services and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present: Mr. P.K. Kukreja, Advocate, for the petitioner. M.M. KUMAR, J. The instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against order dated 21.5.2007 (P-1), passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Public Utility Services, Chandigarh, on the ground that the claims made by the petitioner under the insurance policy were stale. The Permanent Lok Adalat has pointed out that 9 claims have emerged under the policy dated 21.12.1998, the next 43 claims were based on the policy dated 21.12.2000 and the last 14 claims were covered by the policy of the year 2001. The claim application before the Permanent Lok Adalat was filed on 30.8.2006. The Lok Adalat after quoting Article 44(b) of the Schedule of the Limitation Act, 1963, has concluded that the period of three years has C.W.P. No. 2041 of 2008 to be taken from the date of occurrence causing the loss or where the claim on the policy is denied either partly or wholly, then from the date of such denial. The occurrence causing the loss to the vehicles in transit took place in the years 1998, 2000 and 2001 and, therefore, the claims have been held to be totally time barred. Having heard learned counsel, we are of the considered view that there is no room to interfere in the impugned order. Once the Permanent Lok Adalat was called upon to adjudicate on the issue by invoking the provisions of Section 22C(8) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, then the period of limitation provided by the Limitation Act, 1963, was applicable, which has rightly been applied. It could not be successfully contested by the petitioner that occurrence causing loss to the vehicles in transit took place in the years 1998, 2000 and 2001. The claim was made on 30.8.2006 much after the period of three years. It is, thus, obvious that the claims are hopelessly time barred. There is, thus, no merit in the instant petition. Dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (T.P.S. MANN) February 12, 2008 JUDGE Pkapoor 2