[2026:RJ-JP:14445] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18939/2025 Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Through Its Branch Manager, Yash Tower, Bajaj Road, Sikar, Tehsil And District Sikar. ----Petitioner Versus Dharma Ram Son Of Chola Ram, Aged About 51 Years, Resident Of Gram Basni Saija, Tehsil - Merta City, District Nagaur, Presently Residing At Behind Hero Honda Agency, Jaipur Road, Sikar, Tehsil And District Sikar. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Firoz Akhtar Ansari Ms. Nistha Jain for Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singhal For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Judgment 07/04/2026 1. The present petition has been filed against the award dated 19.09.2025, whereby an award of Rs.7,50,000/- with additional litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- has been passed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted the impugned order is passed by Permanent Lok Adalat. It is fairly conceded by the learned counsel that tractor was attached to a thresher which was not insured and the accident occurred on account of usage of thresher which was not part of the insurance cover. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal has not dealt the plea of the petitioner in appropriate manner. 3. Heard and perused the award order. [2026:RJ-JP:14445] (2 of 6) [CW-18939/2025] 4. This Court upon hearing the contentions put forth by the learned counsel, and upon scanning the material available on record, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the instant matter, for the reasons noted hereinbelow: 2.1 That the scope of interference is minuscule and need to invoke the writ or extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court is limited. It is opined that in order to invoke such jurisdiction under constitutional provisions, warrants apparent malafides, arbitrariness and illegality. The said view is substantiated from the ratio encapsulated in Life Insurance Corpn. of India and ors. v. Asha Goel (Smt.) and another: (2001) 2 SCC 160, relevant extract from which is reproduced as under: "10. Article 226 of the Constitution confers extraordinary jurisdiction on the High Court to issue high prerogative writs for enforcement of the fundamental rights or for any other purpose. It is wide and expansive. The Constitution does not place any fetter on exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction. It is left to the discretion of the High Court Therefore, it cannot be laid down as a general proposition of law that in no case the High Court can entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution to enforce a claim under a life insurance policy. It is neither possible nor proper to enumerate exhaustively the circumstances in which such a claim can or cannot be enforced by filing a writ petition. The determination of the question depends on consideration of several factors like, whether a writ petitioner is merely attempting to enforce his/her contractual rights or the case raises important questions of law and constitutional issues, the nature of the dispute raised; the nature of inquiry necessary for determination of [2026:RJ-JP:14445] (3 of 6) [CW-18939/2025] the dispute etc. The matter is to be considered in the facts and circumstances of each case. While the jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be denied altogether, courts must bear in mind the self- imposed restriction consistently followed by High Courts all these years after the constitutional power came into existence in not entertaining writ petitions filed for enforcement of purely contractual rights and obligations which involve disputed questions of facts. The courts have consistently taken the view that in a case where for determination of the dispute raised, it is necessary to inquire into facts for determination of which it may become necessary to record oral evidence a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution, is not the appropriate forum. The position is also well settled that if the contract entered between the parties provide an alternate forum for resolution of disputes arising from the contract, then the parties should approach the forum agreed by them and the High Court in writ jurisdiction should not permit them to bypass the agreed forum of dispute resolution At the cost of repetition it may be stated that in the above discussions we have only indicated some of the circumstances in which the High Court have declined to entertain petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution for enforcement of contractual rights and obligation; the discussions are not intended to be exhaustive. This Court from time to time disapproved of a High Court entertaining a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in matters of enforcement of contractual rights and obligation particularly where the claim by one party is contested by the other and adjudication of the dispute requires [2026:RJ-JP:14445] (4 of 6) [CW-18939/2025] inquiry into facts. We may notice a few such cases; Mohd. Hanif v. State of Assam; Banchhanidhi Rath v. State of Orissa; Rukmanibai Gupta v. Collector, Jabalpur; Food Corpn. of India v. Jagannath Dutta and State of H.P. v. Raja Mahendra Pal." (Emphasis laid) 2.2 That in the matter at hand there is no apparent illegality and that the learned Trial Court upon assiduous scanning of the vital aspects of the matter at hand has given its conscience opinion. The relevant upheld opinion of the award dated 19.09.2025 is reproduced herein under: “ हमने उभयपक के ववदान अवधवकागण की बहस पर मनन वकया तथा अवभलेख का पररशीलन वकया। अवभलेख के पररशीलन से ववपकी बीमा कमनी दारा पाथर के वाहन की पेके ज पॉवलसी एनेकर 1 जारी की गई है, जो वदनांक 12.08.2021 से 11.08.2022 तक की अववध की है, जो बीमा पॉवलसी संखा 243701/31/2022/484 है तथा वाहन संखा आरजे 21 आरएच 0705 की यह बीमा पॉवलसी है, वजसमे ऑनर ड् ाईवर का भी वपवमयम वलया हआ है तथा एनेकर 3 है तथा पाथर के दावहने हाथ का एमचुएशन वकया गया है, जो कलोकोमीटर वडसएवबवलटी का है, जो राजसान सरकार के वचवकता ववभाग दारा जारी वकया गया है, वजसमे 80 पवतशत साई ववकलांगता होना आया है, वजसका पमाण पत एनेकर 4 है तथा पुवलस थाना गोटन की ररपोटर मे ट्ेकर के थेसर मे हाथ कटना आया है, वजसकी जांच ररपोटर एनेकर 5 है तथा ववपकी बीमा कमनी को वदया गया वववधक नोवटस एनेकर 6 है तथा शीराम असताल की वडसचाजर वटवकट एनेकर 7 है, वजसमे वदनांक 17.10.2021 को पाथर का एडवमशन होना तथा वदनांक 18.10.2021 को पाथर का ऑपरेशन होना तथा वदनांक 28.10.2021 को पाथर को वडसचाजर करना आया है, वजसमे कश इंजरी वलखा हआ है तथा शीराम असताल के वबल वाउचर 91,340/- रपए के है, जो वक एनेकर 8 है, तो अवभलेख से यह तो सावपत ससवत है वक पाथर जब ट्ेकर मय थेसर से मूंग वनकाल रहा था तो थेसर की वगरारी मे उसका दावहना हाथ आ जाने से दावहने हाथ का एमचुऐशन वकया गया है, वजसमे 80 पवतशत साई ववकलांगता होना पाथर के आया है तथा पुवलस जांच ररपोटर से भी ट्ेकर के थेसर से हाथ कटना आया है तथा एनेकर 4 पमाण पत से लोकोमीटर ववकलांगता होना आया है तथा कश इंजरी होना मेवडकल ररपोटर से पकट है तथा पाथर के दावहने हाथ का एमचुएशन करना मेवडकल ररपोटर से पकट है तथा यहां दुररटना पाथर जो वक वाहन संखा आरजे 21 आर एच 0705 का [2026:RJ-JP:14445] (5 of 6) [CW-18939/2025] पंजीकृ त सामी है एवं चालक भी है, वजसके दुररटनातक साई ववकलांगता होना आया है तथा ऑनर कम ड् ाईवर का बीमा वपवमयम ववपकी बीमा दारा एनेकर 1 पॉवलसी से वलया गया है। अब जहां तक बीमा कमनी के ववदान अवधवका का यह तकर है वक ट्ेकर के लगी हई थेसर मशीन से 1 दुररटना हई है तथा थेसर मशीन का बीमा नहीं था। इस तकर के संबंध मे नायालय का ववनम मत यह है वक कृ वष कायर के वलए ट्ेकर के साथ सहायक उपकरण के तौर पर यानी असेसरी के रप मे थेसर मशीन होती है, जो कृ वष कायर के वलए होती है। थेसर का अलग से बीमा करवाया जाना आवशक हो, ऐसी कोई वववधक पसंगवत ववपकी बीमा कमनी के ववदान अवधवका दारा पकट नहीं की गई है, इसवलए थेसर सहायक उपकरण होने से ट्ेकर से यह दुररटनातक ववकलांगता होना सावपत ससवत है। अतः ववपकी बीमा ” कमनी के ववदान अवधवका के इस तकर मे कोई वववधक सार नजर नहीं आता है। 2.3 That the amount as awarded by the Permanent Lok Adalat is justified vis-a-vis the facts and circumstances of the matter and the same ought not to be interfered by the High Court, under its supervisory or writ jurisdiction, as this Court is of a considered opinion that for redressal and awarding such amount, minute disputed question of facts are addressed and the appropriate authority to carry out the said exercise is the trial court. It is also noteworthy that the orders passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat are conclusive, and final in nature, as per the scheme and objective of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, more specifically Section 22E, which is reproduced as under: "22E. Award of Permanent Lok Adalat to be final.—(1) Every award of the Permanent Lok Adalat under this Act made either on merit or in terms of a settlement agreement shall be final and binding on all the parties thereto and on persons claiming under them. (2) Every award of the Permanent Lok Adalat under this Act shall be deemed to be a decree of a civil court. [2026:RJ-JP:14445] (6 of 6) [CW-18939/2025] (3) The award made by the Permanent Lok Adalat under this Act shall be by a majority of the persons constituting the Permanent Lok Adalat. (4) Every award made by the Permanent Lok Adalat under this Act shall be final and shall not be called in question in any original suit, application or execution proceeding. (5) The Permanent Lok Adalat may transmit any award made by it to a civil court having local jurisdiction and such civil court shall execute the order as if it were a decree made by that court." 3. In summation of the abovenoted, it can be jot down that the orders passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, ought not to be judicially reviewed unless there is apparent arbitrariness or the order is ex facie non speaking; that when the amount awarded is justified, and the order passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat covers all the parameters of vital consideration and circumstances, rather is sans any perversity, arbitrariness, violation of natural justice, malafides; that in view of ex facie non-arbitrariness and the view laid down in Life Insurance Corpn. of India (supra), that as per the mandate of Section 22E of the governing statute, which makes it categorically clear that the orders passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat are conclusive and final in nature, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present petition. 4. In view of the aforementioned, the instant petition is dismissed being bereft of any merits and no apparent arbitrariness in the order impugned. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed. (SAMEER JAIN),J CHANDAN /87