[2025:RJ-JP:29327] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9148/2020 Nazar Mohammad S/o Shri Hamida, Resident Of Village Sidhrawat, Tehsil Firozpur Jhirka, District Noohe (Haryana) ----Petitioner Versus Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company, Address- 4Th And 5Th Floor, Iffco Tower, Plot No. 3, Sector-29, Gurgaon (Haryana) Through Branch Manager. ----Respondent Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6142/2020 Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited, Having Registered Office At Iffco Sadan, C-1, District Center- Saket, New Delhi-110017 Having Its Branch Office At Fourth And Fifth Floor, Iffco Tower, Plot No. -03, Sector-29, Gurgaon (Haryana) And Having Its Current Regional Office 101, First Floor, Arg Corporate Park, Gopal Badi, Ajmer Road Flyover, Above Prem Motors, Jaipur-302006 Through Its Constituent Attorney Through Its Constituent Attorney. ----Petitioner Versus Najar Mohammed S/o Shri Hameeda, R/o Village Sidhrawat, Tehsil Firojpur Jhirka, District Nuh (Haryana). ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dharmendra Kumar for Mr. Kapil Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. Chanderdeep Singh Jodha JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 31/07/2025 1. By way of filing these writ petitions, a challenge has been made to the impugned award dated 15.01.2020 passed by the [2025:RJ-JP:29327] (2 of 3) [CW-9148/2020] Permanent Lok Adalat, Alwar by which the claim submitted by the claimant-Nazar Mohammad for theft of his vehicle has been partly allowed and the Insurance Company has been directed to pay cost of 75% of the vehicle to the claimant i.e. Rs.17,99,000/- against which both the parties are not satisfied with the aforesaid award passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat. 2. The grievance of the Insurance Company is that the incident of theft occurred on 02.11.2016 and FIR was lodged after great delay of 20 days i.e. 21.11.2016. Hence, the claimant is not entitled to get any sort of claim amount. On contrary, it is the case of the claimant that for the incident of theft dated 02.11.2016 the intimation was given to the Insurance Company immediately without any delay on the next date i.e. 03.11.2016. 3. Counsel submits that though there was slight delay in lodging the FIR but the intimation was given to the Insurance Company about the theft immediately. Hence, the claimant is entitled to get 100% cost of the stolen vehicle. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record. 5. This fact is not in dispute that the vehicle of the petitioner was stolen and the incident of theft of the petitioner’s vehicle had taken place on 02.11.2016. This fact is not in dispute that an intimation of the aforesaid theft was given by the claimant to the Insurance Company on 03.11.2016. This fact is also not in dispute that the FIR was lodged on 21.11.2016. It is true that delay has occurred in lodging the FIR after 21 days of the incident. [2025:RJ-JP:29327] (3 of 3) [CW-9148/2020] 6. Considering overall facts and circumstances of the case, the Permanent Lok Adalat has passed a reasoned and cogent order and directed the Insurance Company to pay 75% of the cost of the stolen vehicle. 7. This Court finds no error in the award passed by the Tribunal, and the same does not require any interference of this Court and accordingly, both writ petitions stand rejected. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Ashu/91-92