Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Smt Santosh Kanwar And Ors vs Permanet Lok Adalat And Anr on 19 December, 2011
Author: Alok Sharma
Bench: Alok Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH JUDGMENT S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1826/2010 (Smt. Santosh Kanwar & Ors. Vs. Parmanent Lok Adalat & Anr.) Date of Order : 19.12.2011 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SHARMA Mr. Sandeep Mathur, for the petitioner.
A challenge in this petition has been laid to the order dated 21.08.2009 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Legal Service Authority Act, Jaipur.
The facts of the case are that a motorcycle bearing registration No.RJ-14-50-M-3494 belonging to one Rajendra Singh was insured with the Bajaj Allianze general Insurance Company through policy effective 25.10.2005 to 24.10.2006. Under the said policy besides other coverage personal accident risk for the owner-com-driver appears to have been covered to an extent of Rs.1,00,000/- and for this purpose, a premium of Rs.50/- is stated to have been paid and charged. Shri Rajendra Singh appears to have died in an accident while driving his insured motorcycle on or about 12.06.2006 i.e. within the currency of the policy.
The legal representatives of the deceased, Rajendra Singh (herein the petitioners in this petition) filed an application on 24.04.2009 before the Permanent Lok Adalat purporting to be one under Section 22B of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 (hereafter 'the Act of 1987') stating that in spite of a claim made before the Insurance Company the amount under the personal accident policy has not been paid and prayed that the Permanent Lok Adalat award the same.
On notice being served on the Insurance Company, a reply came to be filed to the application inter alia stating that no claim under the policy in issue for payment of compensation under the personal accident risk had been made at all within a period of one year of the death, nor in fact the Insurance Company ever informed about the accident. It was submitted that consequently there was no dispute in the eye of law and as such the application before the Permanent Lok Adalat was not maintainable. Other grounds in defence were also taken.
The Permanent Lok Adalat, Jaipur having heard the matter vide order dated 21.08.2009 dismissed the claim petition of the petitioners noting that the claim petition had been filed after a delay of about three years from the date of accident and prior thereto no such claim appears to have been filed with even the Insurance Company, notwithstanding a claim to the contrary, for no detail of the filing of the purported claim before the Insurance Company had been set out. The Permanent Lok Adalat proceeded to further note that in the claim petition even the details of the driving licence of the deceased Rajendra Singh had not been given, nor otherwise submitted even before the Lok Adalat.
Counsel for the petitioners would submit that the Permanent Lok Adalat erred in holding that there was no dispute as averments had made in the claim with regard to the claim having been laid before the Insurance Company albeit without reference to the date of its filing. Counsel further submits that an averment on oath was sufficient for the Lok Adalat to come to a conclusion that there was a dispute between the petitioners and the Insurance Company. It has been further submitted that it is not unusual for an Insurance Company to refuse a receipt with regard to the filing of a claim. Counsel would further submit that limitation in laying a claim petition would be one year from the date of rejection and because there was no formal rejection of the claim allegedly made, the issue of the proceedings before the Lok Adalat being hit by limitation would not arise. He further submits that the issue of the deceased Rajendra Singh not having a driving licence was an issue which was to be later addressed by the Permanent Lok Adalat and not while dismissing at the threshold.
I have heard the counsel for the petitioners and perused the impugned order dated 21.08.2009 as also the record of the case.
Litigation is a serious matter and cannot be casually pursued. It was incumbent upon the petitioners-claimants to detail the date or even the month in which the claim was laid before the Insurance Company. This was not done. The failure of the petitioners-claimants to set out the details of the claim in the first instance before the Insurance Company cannot be circumvented by a mere assertion that the receipts of the claim made was not given by the Insurance Company to them. This was a vague assertion which did not provide a foundation to support a palpably delayed claim. From the material on record, the Lok Adalat did not err in coming to a conclusion that the claim by the petitioners had not been made before the Insurance Company and a belated direct approach to the Lok Adalat was indicative no dispute having been earlier raised. Further the absence of details of the driving licence of the deceased was also very relevant to the sustainability of the claim before the Permanent Lok Adalat.
I am therefore of the view that the claim was a delayed one and in respect of which no claim had been made to the Insurance Company. Vague averments with regard to the filing of the claim and setting up a case that until the claim is rejected the cause of action would not arise, are of no avail. It is a specific finding of the Lok Adalat from the record of the case that the claim was not made at all. Consequently, in terms of the policy of Insurance Company even otherwise the claim of the petitioners would be barred by limitation. Further the finding of the Permanent Lok Adalat with regard to the petitioners' claim also deserving fail for reason of failing to give out any detail of the driving licence of the deceased Rajendra Singh is also valid. The Permanent Lok Adalat has taken these substantive aspects into account to dismiss the claim petition.
In this view of the matter, I find no error in the order dated 21.08.2009, passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Jaipur.
The writ petition stands dismissed accordingly.
(ALOK SHARMA), J MS/