IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.8107 of 2009 Date of Decision: 16.07.2009 National Insurance Company Limited Petitioner Versus Angoori Devi and others Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH Present: Mr. D.P.Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner ….. Jasbir Singh, J.(Oral) CM No.9645 of 2009 Application allowed, documents are taken on record. CWP No.8107 of 2009 This writ petition has been filed to lay challenge to an award, passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services) Gurgaon (in short the Lok Adalat), awarding an amount of Rs.1,32,646/- to respondent No.1 towards damage caused to his vehicle in a motor accident. It is apparent from the records that respondent No.1 insured his vehicle bearing No.HR-99-BS(Temp)-4790 with the petitioner company on 18.4.2008. Vehicle met with accident on 21.5.2008. Despite request when the petitioner failed to make payment towards damage caused to the vehicle, respondent No.1 moved an application under Section 22-C of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, to get his claim. It was his case that he sent his car for repair to M/s Pasco Automobiles, a dealer of Maruti Vehicle. He was intimated by the workshop people that the damage caused to the shell Civil Writ Petition No.8107 of 2009 of the vehicle is to the extent of 80% and is beyond repair. He was advised to get the shell repaired. Respondent No.1 had to bring his vehicle from workshop, as the workshop was charging an amount of Rs.250/- per day, as parking charges. Before Lok Adalat, the petitioner took up a stand that the damage caused is less. Survey report was submitted, wherein it was said that damage has been caused to the tune of Rs.55,646.21. The Lok Adalat negatived the argument raised by the petitioner, by observing as under:- “We have heard the parties. Pasco is an authorized workshop and of repute. In its estimate the replacement of body shell has been recommended costing Rs.77,000/-. It has sustained bent. Even if it is removed it cannot be rendered fit for use. It is a common knowledge that the repair of body shell how accurate it may be it cannot be rendered fit for use. The surveyor has not mentioned its repair or replacement. He has not even written that it has not damage. So the amount has to be added in the estimate furnished by the surveyor. As the policy was cashless. An option was given to the respondent to get the vehicle repaired at their own efforts and supervision, but the counsel for the respondent explained that no such job can be undertaken by the company. So the only solution of the matter is that the cost of body shell be added in the amount recommended by the surveyor. The objection that there was no permanent registration of the vehicle is not valid for denying the claim. The temporary registration expired and permanent registration could not taken for some reason and in the meantime accident 2 Civil Writ Petition No.8107 of 2009 occurred. Registration is just a formality and any delay in that behalf cannot exonerate the insurer to avoid the insurance contract. (2007)1 CPC 432. The accident occurred some 9 months back and the vehicle is still lying unrepaired. The respondent is mainly responsible for it. In case the surveyor had been appointed without any delay much hardship suffered by the applicant could be avoided. Even after the order of the Court no steps in that direction were taken. So the award is passed to the effect that the respondent shall pay an amount of Rs.1,32,646/- (55646 + 77000/-) to the applicant within a month failing which the amount shall be paid with interest @ 12% p.a. from today till the date of payment. The applicant shall get his vehicle repaired without delay and delivered the selvage to the respondent at their office.” This Court feels that the finding given above is perfectly justified. By moving an application, photographs of the damaged vehicle have been put on record, which clearly shows that the vehicle from the front side has totally crumbled. It appears to be a total damage, only one portion and back side is safe. As per advice given by the dealer of Maruti vehicles, it appears that it was not possible to repair the vehicle in question. That is why replacement of shell was advised. In view of facts mentioned above, no case is made out for interference. Dismissed. 15.07.2009 (Jasbir Singh) gk Judge 3