CWP-20736-202 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 121 NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED JARNAIL SINGH PABLA AND ANOTHER CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Present:- Mr. Abhimanyu Kalsy, Advoca for the petitioner. TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA The petition has been filed, quashing the award Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Rupnagar, no.271/16.05.2025 theft of truck, of nine per cent per annum 2. Learned counsel contended that first respondent/owner/applicant (Exhibit R-5), driver of the truck parked the vehicle at night and in the cabin itself. driver which led to theft of the vehicle in question. no.5 of the Insurance Policy unattended without proper precautions or loss’. Accordingly rejecting the claim. 3. Heard. 2026 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP Date of Decision: NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Versus JARNAIL SINGH PABLA AND ANOTHER CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA Mr. Abhimanyu Kalsy, Advocate for the petitioner. TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA, J. (Oral) The petition has been filed, inter alia quashing the award dated 17.04.2026, Annexure P Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Rupnagar, 271/16.05.2025, whereby accepting the claim of the theft of truck, the claimed amount of ₹5,10,00 of nine per cent per annum and compensation, has been awarded Learned counsel contended that, as first respondent/owner/applicant made before , driver of the truck parked the vehicle at night and in the cabin itself. This was a negligent act on the part of the owner and his led to theft of the vehicle in question. nsurance Policy, which requires that ‘ unattended without proper precautions being taken ’. Accordingly, the petitioner/Insurance Company the claim. Heard. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-20736-2026 Date of Decision: 10.07.2026 NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED …Petitioner(s) JARNAIL SINGH PABLA AND ANOTHER …Respondent(s) TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA inter alia, seeking a writ of certiorari dated 17.04.2026, Annexure P-10, passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Rupnagar, in case whereby accepting the claim of the first respondent for 5,10,000 along with interest at the rate , has been awarded. as evident from the statement of made before the investigating agency , driver of the truck parked the vehicle at night and left the keys a negligent act on the part of the owner and his led to theft of the vehicle in question. This is breach of condition requires that ‘the vehicle shall not be left being taken to prevent further damage , the petitioner/Insurance Company was justified in certiorari passed by the in case for along with interest at the rate the statement of investigating agency the keys a negligent act on the part of the owner and his dition left further damage in AMAN DUA 2026.07.17 08:56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this judicial document CWP-20736-202 4. Considering the submissions finds that the Lok Adalat has driver of the vehicle was not negligent inside the cabin. cabin and its key in the ignition. Merely because it was sufficient to establish could not be proved inside the cabin by 5. It will be appropriate to refer the reasoning recorded by the Adalat rejecting the pet 10. truck in question. Truck is a vehicle which always parked outside the house and when it was parked at village Railon Khurd in the village of the driver, and even presuming that key was left inside the truck this fact alone is not sufficient to conclude that theft took place only because of the reason that ignition key was inside the truck. In the documents placed key was left in ignition switch and it was disclosed that the key was inside the truck. When a word in addition to the ignition key were presuming t than by no stretch of imagination it can be concluded that leaving the key inside the vehicle facilitated the theft. It is undisputed case of the respondents that truck and was not in the ignition. Even otherwise, the reasonableness is a perception. What might appear to be unreasonable to the respondents may be reasonable from the point of view of the insured. It has to be taken into consideration that the vehicle 2026 -2- Considering the submissions and pursuing the record finds that the Lok Adalat has recorded cogent reason driver of the vehicle was not negligent in any manner in leaving the key inside the cabin. It has been found that he ha cabin and its key was with him only. Also, it is not a in the ignition. Merely because it was kept inside the cabin would not be sufficient to establish negligence on the part of the driver proved that the vehicle was drive the cabin by him. It will be appropriate to refer the reasoning recorded by the Adalat rejecting the petitioner’s contentions, which is as under: 10. … The applicant has deputed Sucha Singh as driver of the truck in question. Truck is a vehicle which always parked outside the house and when it was parked at village Railon Khurd in the village of the driver, certainly truck was parked at a safe place and even presuming that key was left inside the truck this fact alone is not sufficient to conclude that theft took place only because of the reason that ignition key was inside the truck. In the documents placed on record, it is no where stated that ignition key was left in ignition switch and it was disclosed that the key was inside the truck. When a word in addition to the ignition key were presuming that ignition key was also there inside the vehicle even than by no stretch of imagination it can be concluded that leaving the key inside the vehicle facilitated the theft. It is undisputed case of the respondents that the key of the vehicle was left in th truck and was not in the ignition. Even otherwise, the reasonableness is a perception. What might appear to be unreasonable to the respondents may be reasonable from the point of view of the insured. It has to be taken into consideration that the vehicle in question was parked in village Railon khurd. and pursuing the record, this Court cogent reasons and ascertained that in any manner in leaving the keys he had properly locked the vehicle it is not a case that the key was left kept inside the cabin would not be negligence on the part of the driver, especially when it driven away using the same key left It will be appropriate to refer the reasoning recorded by the Lok itioner’s contentions, which is as under: The applicant has deputed Sucha Singh as driver of the truck in question. Truck is a vehicle which always parked outside the house and when it was parked at village Railon Khurd in the certainly truck was parked at a safe place and even presuming that key was left inside the truck this fact alone is not sufficient to conclude that theft took place only because of the reason that ignition key was inside the truck. In on record, it is no where stated that ignition key was left in ignition switch and it was disclosed that the key was inside the truck. When a word keys is used certainly the keys in addition to the ignition key were there in the truck and even hat ignition key was also there inside the vehicle even than by no stretch of imagination it can be concluded that leaving the key inside the vehicle facilitated the theft. It is undisputed the key of the vehicle was left in the truck and was not in the ignition. Even otherwise, the reasonableness is a perception. What might appear to be unreasonable to the respondents may be reasonable from the point of view of the insured. It has to be taken into consideration in question was parked in village Railon khurd. , this Court that s vehicle left kept inside the cabin would not be when it using the same key left Lok The applicant has deputed Sucha Singh as driver of the truck in question. Truck is a vehicle which always parked outside the house and when it was parked at village Railon Khurd in the certainly truck was parked at a safe place and even presuming that key was left inside the truck this fact alone is not sufficient to conclude that theft took place only because of the reason that ignition key was inside the truck. In on record, it is no where stated that ignition key was left in ignition switch and it was disclosed that the key keys is used certainly the keys there in the truck and even hat ignition key was also there inside the vehicle even than by no stretch of imagination it can be concluded that leaving the key inside the vehicle facilitated the theft. It is undisputed e truck and was not in the ignition. Even otherwise, the reasonableness is a perception. What might appear to be unreasonable to the respondents may be reasonable from the point of view of the insured. It has to be taken into consideration in question was parked in village Railon khurd. AMAN DUA 2026.07.17 08:56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this judicial document CWP-20736-202 Thus the driver has parked the truck in a safe place. Therefore, the vehicle in question which was duly insured with the respondents and the policy covers the cover of theft. Hence the application moved by t 6. Finding suffer from any legal infirmity saying that in case the vehicle in question is recovered at any time in future, the petitioner’s subrogation rights 10.07.2026 Ad 2026 -3- Thus the driver has parked the truck in a safe place. Therefore, the vehicle in question which was duly insured with the respondents and the policy covers the cover of theft. Hence the application moved by the applicant is allowed. Finding no ground to interfere with the award which does not any legal infirmity, the petition stands dismissed. that in case the vehicle in question is recovered at any time in future, he petitioner’s subrogation rights qua it shall remain Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable Thus the driver has parked the truck in a safe place. Therefore, the vehicle in question which was duly insured with the respondents and the policy covers the cover of theft. Hence the he applicant is allowed. ... interfere with the award which does not , the petition stands dismissed. It goes without that in case the vehicle in question is recovered at any time in future, remain unaffected. (TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No Thus the driver has parked the truck in a safe place. Therefore, the vehicle in question which was duly insured with the respondents and the policy covers the cover of theft. Hence the interfere with the award which does not It goes without that in case the vehicle in question is recovered at any time in future, ) AMAN DUA 2026.07.17 08:56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this judicial document