CWP-11987-2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 124 The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Permanent Lok Adalat, Public Utility Services, Kurukshetra & others CORAM: HON Present: - Mr. for the petitioner. *** JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J 1. The the Constitution of India is seeking (Annexure P-4) whereby allowed private Services Authorit 2. The insured purchased an insurance policy from petitioner with respect to paid additional for owner-driver. Harpreet Singh suffered injuries. He died during treatment on No.217 dated 12.09.2021 under Sections registered at Police Station Derabassi, District SAS Nagar (Mohali) heirs of deceased filed 2026 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP Date of Decision: The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Lok Adalat, Public Utility Services, Kurukshetra & others HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Mr. Arun Chander Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. *** JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral) The petitioner through instant petition under Article the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of Award dated 15.12.2025 4) whereby learned Permanent Lok Adalat (for short ‘PLA’) has private respondents’ application filed under Section 22C of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (for short ‘1987 Act’). The insured purchased an insurance policy from petitioner with respect to his vehicle bearing registration number HR paid additional premium of Rs.320/- for compulsory Personal Accident cover driver. Insured car met with an accident on Harpreet Singh suffered injuries. He died during treatment on 217 dated 12.09.2021 under Sections 279, 337, 427, 304A IPC was registered at Police Station Derabassi, District SAS Nagar (Mohali) heirs of deceased filed claim petition before MACT, Kurukshetra which was IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-11987-2026 Date of Decision: 22.04.2026 …Petitioner Lok Adalat, Public Utility Services, Kurukshetra & others …Respondents BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Arun Chander Sharma, Advocate, petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of setting aside of Award dated 15.12.2025 Permanent Lok Adalat (for short ‘PLA’) has iled under Section 22C of the Legal Act, 1987 (for short ‘1987 Act’). The insured purchased an insurance policy from petitioner-insurer his vehicle bearing registration number HR-02-AB-5687. He for compulsory Personal Accident cover Insured car met with an accident on 11.09.2021 and driver- Harpreet Singh suffered injuries. He died during treatment on 01.10.2021. FIR 79, 337, 427, 304A IPC was registered at Police Station Derabassi, District SAS Nagar (Mohali). Legal petition before MACT, Kurukshetra which was Petitioner s of setting aside of Award dated 15.12.2025 Permanent Lok Adalat (for short ‘PLA’) has iled under Section 22C of the Legal insurer 5687. He for compulsory Personal Accident cover - 01.10.2021. FIR 79, 337, 427, 304A IPC was Legal petition before MACT, Kurukshetra which was VIMAL KUMAR 2026.04.22 18:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-11987-2026 allowed. The basis of policy lodged claim. The petitioner examined the matter and formed an opinion that there was suppression of facts, thus, claim is liable to be repudiated. Accordingly, petitioner rejected respondents filed an applic PLA which sought response of the petitioner. Matter was tried to be reconciled, however, was finally adjudicated on merits. L there was no occasion to repudiate applicant wrongly rejected the same. 3. As per petitioner, Harpreet Singh was drunk at the time of accident and as per terms & conditions of the polic owner-driver is under the influence of intoxicating liqu 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner on being asked failed to point out any concrete evidence proving level of consumption of liquor by insured which could make his family members disentitle 5. Heard the arguments and p 6. The only argument of petitioner is that insured was under the influence of liquor when the alleged accident took place. The petitioner is disputing insurance policy, entitlement of insured, use existence of legal heirs. The petitioner is only disputing found positive evidence that deceased had consumed liquor to the extent that he ha over the vehicle, the petitioner cannot deny benefit of compensation to the dependents of insured. Learned PLA has recorded categoric finding 2026 -2- The private respondents, who are legal heirs of the deceased, basis of policy lodged claim. The petitioner examined the matter and formed an opinion that there was suppression of facts, thus, claim is liable to be repudiated. Accordingly, petitioner rejected filed an application under Section 22C of 1987 Act before PLA which sought response of the petitioner. Matter was tried to be reconciled, however, was finally adjudicated on merits. L there was no occasion to repudiate applicant wrongly rejected the same. As per petitioner, Harpreet Singh was drunk at the time of accident and as per terms & conditions of the policy, no compensation is payable if driver is under the influence of intoxicating liqu Learned counsel for the petitioner on being asked failed to point out any concrete evidence proving level of consumption of liquor by insured make his family members disentitle Heard the arguments and perused the record. The only argument of petitioner is that insured was under the influence of liquor when the alleged accident took place. The petitioner is disputing insurance policy, entitlement of insured, use existence of legal heirs. The petitioner is only disputing found positive qua liquor consumption. In the absence of any concrete that deceased had consumed liquor to the extent that he ha over the vehicle, the petitioner cannot deny benefit of compensation to the dependents of insured. Learned PLA has recorded categoric finding , who are legal heirs of the deceased, on the basis of policy lodged claim. The petitioner examined the matter and formed an opinion that there was suppression of facts, thus, claim is liable to be repudiated. Accordingly, petitioner rejected their claim. The private ation under Section 22C of 1987 Act before learned PLA which sought response of the petitioner. Matter was tried to be reconciled, however, was finally adjudicated on merits. Learned PLA has concluded that there was no occasion to repudiate applicants’ claim, thus, petitioner has As per petitioner, Harpreet Singh was drunk at the time of accident , no compensation is payable if driver is under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs. Learned counsel for the petitioner on being asked failed to point out any concrete evidence proving level of consumption of liquor by insured make his family members disentitled to compensation. erused the record. The only argument of petitioner is that insured was under the influence of liquor when the alleged accident took place. The petitioner is not disputing insurance policy, entitlement of insured, use of vehicle, accident and existence of legal heirs. The petitioner is only disputing that the deceased was liquor consumption. In the absence of any concrete that deceased had consumed liquor to the extent that he had no control over the vehicle, the petitioner cannot deny benefit of compensation to the dependents of insured. Learned PLA has recorded categoric finding that the on the basis of policy lodged claim. The petitioner examined the matter and formed an opinion that there was suppression of facts, thus, claim is liable to be private learned PLA which sought response of the petitioner. Matter was tried to be reconciled, PLA has concluded that im, thus, petitioner has As per petitioner, Harpreet Singh was drunk at the time of accident , no compensation is payable if Learned counsel for the petitioner on being asked failed to point out any concrete evidence proving level of consumption of liquor by insured The only argument of petitioner is that insured was under the not of vehicle, accident and that the deceased was liquor consumption. In the absence of any concrete ol over the vehicle, the petitioner cannot deny benefit of compensation to the that the VIMAL KUMAR 2026.04.22 18:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-11987-2026 petitioner-insurance company cannot absolve itself compensate the dependents of i infirmity in the impugned order warranting interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction by this Court. 7. In the backdrop, the petition stands dismissed. 22.04.2026 Vimal Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 2026 -3- insurance company cannot absolve itself compensate the dependents of insured. There is no infirmity in the impugned order warranting interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction by this Court. In the backdrop, the petition stands dismissed. Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No insurance company cannot absolve itself of its liability to nsured. There is no material illegality or infirmity in the impugned order warranting interference in exercise of writ In the backdrop, the petition stands dismissed. (JAGMOHAN BANSAL) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No f its liability to material illegality or infirmity in the impugned order warranting interference in exercise of writ (JAGMOHAN BANSAL) VIMAL KUMAR 2026.04.22 18:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document