Thursday, 14, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

United India Insurance Company ... vs Smt. Manju Lunkar
2021 Latest Caselaw 6508 Raj

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 6508 Raj
Judgement Date : 4 March, 2021

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
United India Insurance Company ... vs Smt. Manju Lunkar on 4 March, 2021
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
                                           (1 of 3)                  [CW-6967/2020]


       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                        JODHPUR
                S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6967/2020

United India Insurance Company Limited, Through The Divisional
Manager, Mahatama Gandhi Hospital Road, Jodhpur, Through Its
Authorized Signatory Mr. B.l. Meena S/o S.N. Meena Age 50
Designated      As   Manager,       United       India      Insurance   Company
Limited, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
                                                                     ----Petitioner
                                     Versus
1.       Smt. Manju Lunkar, W/o Suresh Lunkar, 17-B, New Power
         House Road, Jodhpur.
2.       Suresh Lunkar S/o Shri Moolchand Lunkar, 17-B, New
         Power House Road, Jodhpur.
                                                                  ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)          :     Mr. Aditya Singh
For Respondent(s)          :     Mr. Anil Bhandari



      HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

                                      Order

04/03/2021

       In wake of onslaught of COVID-19, abundant caution is being

taken while hearing the matters in Court.

       The petitioner has preferred this writ petition claiming the

following relief :-
    "By an appropriate writ, order and / or direction, the
     impugned    award      dated       17.02.2020          passed    by   the
     permanent Lok Adalat in the case number 184/2016(PLA),
     titled Manju Lunkar & Anr. Versus United India Insurance
     Company Limited (Annexure 1), be quashed and set aside
     being unjustified and arbitrary;"

       In the narrow ambit of challenge to the order passed by the

Lok Adalat, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the



                      (Downloaded on 05/03/2021 at 08:45:32 PM)
                                           (2 of 3)               [CW-6967/2020]



policy amendment in 2018 was applicable and thus, the therapy in

question was not to be compensated.

     Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the policy

was a renewed one and thus, related to the original terms, as the

petitioner was having the policy since 2007.

     Learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the

judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Biman Krishna

Bose Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. reported in

III (2001) CPJ 10 (SC).

     Learned counsel for the respondent has drawn attention of

this Court towards the para 16 of the award, which reads as

follows :-


   "16&   blh dze esa vnkyr dk ;g Hkh fofu'p; gS fd izkFkhZ;k eatw
   ywadM+ ds lk{; 'kiFk &i= esa lk{; gS fd vizkFkhZ }kjk blh izdkj
   dh fpfdRlk esa fot; ey iVok dks fnukad 27&05&2019 dks
   :i;s 1]68][email protected]& ¼v{kjs :i;s ,d yk[k vMlB gtkj] lkr lkS
   ckbZl ek=½ dk Hkqxrku fd;k gS] ftldh iqf"V izn'kZ & ¼13½ ls
   gksrh gSA vr% izkFkhZ Hkh iz'uxr Dyse izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gSA "


     After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing

the record of the case as well as precedent law cited by learned

counsel for the respondent, this Court is not inclined to interfere in

the permanent Lok Adalat order, as the other similarly situated

persons have been granted the benefit of the reimbursement for

the expenses of therapy, as per para 16 of the impugned

judgment, and there is no denial by the appellant.

      In view of the above, the present writ petition is dismissed.

Stay petition also stands dismissed accordingly. The requisite


                     (Downloaded on 05/03/2021 at 08:45:32 PM)
                                                                           (3 of 3)               [CW-6967/2020]



                                   payment shall be paid to the respondent no.1, as respondent no.2

                                   has already been expired.



                                                               (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J.

21-Sudheer/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter