Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sangmeshwar Education Trust vs Permanent Lok Adalat And Others on 24 September, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:126576
CWP-37012-2019 (O&M). -1-
IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT
CHANDIGARH.
215
CWP-37012-2019 (O&M).
Date of Decision: 24.09.2024.
SANGMESHWAR EDUCATION TRUST (REGISTERED)
... Petitioner
Versus
PERMANENT LOK ADALAT (PUBLIC UTILITY SERVICES),
KURUKSHETRA AND OTHERS
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ.
Present: Mr. Tarun Dhingra, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. S.S. Sidhu, Advocate,
for respondents No.2 and 3.
VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (ORAL)
The present petition has been filed for seeking modification of
the award dated 16.03.2018 (Annexure P-2), passed by the Permanent Lok
Adalat (Public Utility Services), Kurukshetra, in case No.296 of 2016 vide
which even though the application under Section 22-C of the Legal Services
Authorities Act, 1987 had been allowed but interest on the awarded amount
has not been awarded despite the respondents being found lacking.
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:126576
CWP-37012-2019 (O&M). -2-
2 Learned counsel for the petitioner-trust has argued that the
petitioner-trust had obtained an insurance policy No.261303/11/2015/549
from the respondents-insurance company (in the application before the
Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Kurukshetra) which was
valid w.e.f. 27.03.2015 to 26.03.2016 on payment of a premium of
Rs.13,481/- for covering the building, plant, machinery, furniture, fixtures
and fittings etc. of Gyan Ganga Polytechnic College, Salpani Khurd, against
a sum assured of Rs.2,40,00,000/-. He contends that on 04.04.2015, two
students of the said college along with instructor without the permission and
knowledge of the college authority, started conducting training work in the
welding workshop of the college. During the performance of the said
welding work, a blast took place in the gas cylinder at the welding
workshop causing a heavy explosion and the emanating fire therefrom
caused immense damage to the building, plant, machinery, furniture,
fixtures and fittings etc. of Gyan Ganga Polytechnic College, Salpani
Khurd. The window glasses of adjoining building of college were blown off
while the walls and windows were deformed and damaged along with other
burn marks. Two college students as well as the instructor had succumbed
to the injuries suffered by them from the fire that erupted. The said accident
was immediately reported to the Fire Brigade Authority which made
extensive efforts to extinguish the fire and succeeded in doing so by 4:00
P.M. The matter was also reported to the police as well as the respondent-
Insurance Company. On receipt of the information about the damage/loss
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:126576
CWP-37012-2019 (O&M). -3-
caused, the respondent-insurance company deputed their surveyor for
assessing the loss. The petitioner furnished the documents in proof
pertaining to the cost of the construction, purchase as well as repair to the
tune of Rs.73,12,476/- whereupon the Surveyor assessed the damage to the
tune of Rs.16,41,391/- after taking into consideration the salvage value and
depreciation factor of the items.
3 Aggrieved of the aforesaid assessment, a claim was lodged by
the petitioner before the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services),
Kurukshetra.
4 The respondent-insurance company entered appearance and
filed its written statement taking various objections to the maintainability of
the claim and also raised objections on the merits by pressing that the
accident in question took place on account of the negligence on the part of
the management of the college and that an FIR bearing No.28 dated
04.04.2015 under Section 304-A IPC was registered at Police Station
Jhansa against the chairperson of the petitioner-trust. A final report prima
facie proving the charge was filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C. and charges
were also framed. Since the criminal proceedings had been initiated against
the petitioner-trust and its office bearers, hence, the claim for damages was
declined as per the terms and conditions of the Policy.
5 The Chairperson of the Trust was later acquitted of the said
charge by the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kurukshetra, vide
judgment dated 19.09.2017.
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:126576
CWP-37012-2019 (O&M). -4-
6 It is argued by the counsel for the petitioner-trust that
notwithstanding the loss having been established and determined in his
report by the surveyor appointed by the respondent-insurance company
itself and the property being covered under the terms of the insurance
policy, the respondent-insurance company failed to release the damages to
indemnify the petitioner-trust for the said loss. He contends that it was
under the said circumstances that an application No.296 dated 10.03.2016
was instituted by the petitioner-trust before the Permanent Lok Adalat
(Public Utility Services), Kurukshetra which was ultimately allowed and the
respondent-insurance company was directed to make the payment of
Rs.16,14,397/- as assessed by the Surveyor of the respondent-insurance
company but no interest on the above said amount had been awarded. He
contends that failure of the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services),
Kurukshetra in awarding the interest on the above said amount has caused
pecuniary loss to the petitioner-trust. It is submitted that the above said
benefit had been retained and enjoyed by the respondent-insurance
company for the entire duration and that the benefit thereof ought to be
extended to the petitioner-trust.
7 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-
insurance company contends that even though the amount in question had
been assessed, however, the same could not be released in favour of the
petitioner-trust despite the accident having taken place on 04.04.2015, for
the reason that an FIR regarding the accident had been registered against the
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:126576
CWP-37012-2019 (O&M). -5-
insured himself for negligence and resulting loss. Till such time, that the
petitioner got an order of acquittal in FIR bearing No.28 dated 04.04.2015
under Section 304-A IPC was registered at Police Station Jhansa, the
petitioner himself was prima facie found guilty of negligence resulting in
damage and hence could not seek indemnification of the loss from the
respondent-insurance company. Such an act and conduct would fall in the
exclusion clause, hence, the claim was rightly declined. It was only after an
order of acquittal has been passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Kurukshetra, in favour of the petitioner that he became entitled to it. There
was thus no undue or unnecessary delay on the part of the respondent-
insurance company in releasing the said benefit and that it was on account
of said circumstances that the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility
Services), Kurukshetra, did not award interest at the time of passing of the
award on 16.03.2018. He submits that the payment, however, as per the
directions was released without any delay.
8 I have heard learned counsel appearing for the respective
parties and have also gone through the documents appended along with the
present petition.
9 Even though the argument advanced by the counsel for the
respondent-insurance company appears to be forceful and convincing at the
first instance, however, it is required to be considered that the respondent-
insurance company continued to enjoy the aforesaid money which was
owed by it to the petitioner-trust. The plea of a valid order repudiating the
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:126576
CWP-37012-2019 (O&M). -6-
claim lodged by the petitioner-trust could have at best sustained till such
time that an order of acquittal was passed in favour of the petitioner and till
expiry of the statutory period from the date of passing of the said order.
Since the judgment of acquittal was passed on 19.09.2017, hence, the
aforesaid period of limitation would come to an end on 18.10.2017. The
respondent-insurance company ought not to have retained the amount any
further or awaited for the final outcome of the application by the Permanent
Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Kurukshetra and should have taken an
initiative to pay the said loss as assessed in favour of the petitioner-trust.
10 Taking into consideration, the totality of the circumstances as
well as the fact that Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure as well as the
provisions of the Interest Act, 1978, which necessitate that a person ought
to be compensated for wrongful denial of the sum/monies due to him, I
deem it appropriate that the award passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat
(Public Utility Services), Kurukshetra, needs to be suitably modified. I am
of the opinion that the interest of justice would be served in case the
petitioner is also awarded interest @ 6% per annum from 18.10.2017 till
final disbursement of the compensation as awarded by the Permanent Lok
Adalat (Public Utility Services), Kurukshetra vide award dated 16.03.2018.
The present writ petition is accordingly partly allowed.
September 24, 2024 (VINOD S. BHARDWAJ)
raj arora JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
6 of 6
