[2026:RJ-JP:15793] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12868/2025 1. Through General Manager Head Office, United India Insurance Company Limited, Address - United India House, 24, White Road, Chennai - 600014. 2. Through Regional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, Regional Office - Sahara Chambers, Tonk Raod, Jaipur - 302018 And Second Address, Nbcc Center, Shahakar Marg, Jaipur. 3. Through Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, Policy Issuing Office Above H.d.f.c. Bank, Old Bus Stand, Baharor, Alwar - 301713 (Policy Issuing Office), Having It's Registered Office At 24, Whites Road, Chennai, Having Its Regional Office At, 6Th 7Th And 8Th Floor, Nbcc Center, Lal Kothi Scheme, Jyoti Nagar, Shahakar Marg, Jaipur (Raj.) 302015. ----Petitioners Versus Neeraj Yadav S/o Sh. Pankaj Yadav, Resident Of- National Highway - 08, Dada Ki Dhani, Baharor, Alwar, Rajasthan 301701. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Lokesh Parihar For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Judgment 16/04/2026 1. The present writ petition has been filed, assailing the impugned order/award dated 12.06.2025 passed by the learned Permanent Lok Adalat, Jaipur Metropolitan-II. By way of the impugned order, the learned Permanent Lok Adalat allowed the application of the respondent-claimant and directed the petitioner- Insurance Company to pay an additional sum of Rs. 5,75,000/- [2026:RJ-JP:15793] (2 of 8) [CW-12868/2025] within a period of two months from the date of the order, along with Rs. 3,000/- towards litigation expenses. 2. In the instant matter, it is an admitted position on record that against the Personal Accident (PA) cover sum insured of Rs. 15,00,000/-, the petitioner-Insurance Company had previously disbursed an amount of Rs. 7,50,000/- to the respondent. The present challenge by the petitioner is restricted to the additional award of Rs. 5,75,000/-. 3. 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: 3.1 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 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court 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 [2026:RJ-JP:15793] (3 of 8) [CW-12868/2025] 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 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 [2026:RJ-JP:15793] (4 of 8) [CW-12868/2025] 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 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 supplied) 3.2 That in the matter at hand there is no apparent illegality and that the learned Permanent Lok Adalat upon assiduous scanning of the vital aspects of the matter at hand has given its conscience opinion. The relevant upheld opinion of the order dated 12.06.2025 is reproduced herein under: ^^18- vkbZ-vkj-Mh-,-@,p-,y-Vh-@th-Mh-,y-@,e-vkbZ-,l-lh- @036@02@2021 }kjk fnukad 25-02-2021 dks tkjh dh x;h LVS.MMZ ilZuy ,DlhMsaV ba';ksjsal izksMDV ij tkjh dh x;h xkbZMykbZUl i=koyh ij miyC/k gSA ftlds dkWye ch ds iSjk 10¼lh½ esa of.kZr vuqlkj%& ;fn fdlh O;fDr dks LFkk;h vkf'kad vixark nq?kZVuk ds dkj.k nq?kZVuk dh fnukad ls 12 ekg esa dkfjr gksrh gS rks le bU;ksMZ fuEu vuqlkj ns; gksxkA S.No. Loss Covered Percentage of Sum Insured 1. - - 2. Loss of Use of both ears 50% 3. Loss of Use of one ear 20% 4. - - [2026:RJ-JP:15793] (5 of 8) [CW-12868/2025] 5. - - 6. - - 7. - - 8. - - 9. - - 10. - - 11. - - 12. Any other permanent partial disablement Percentage as assessed by the independent Medical Practitioner 19- i=koyh ij jktLFkku ljdkj ds fpfdRlk ,oa LokLF; foHkkx ds lh-,e-vks- }kjk fnukad 01-12-2022 dks tkjh fd;k x;k izkFkhZ dk LFkk;h fu;ksX;rk izek.k i= izn'kZ 08 ds :i esa i=koyh ij ekStwn gSA ftlds vuqlkj izkFkhZ ds ?kqVus ls Åij dk iSj dkVs tkus dk mYys[k gS o izkFkhZ ds 'kjhj ij 85 izfr'kr LFkk;h 'kkjhfjd fu;ksX;rk gksuk n'kkZ;k x;k gSA ekeys esa nq?kZVuk fnukad 20-04-2022 dh gksuk crk;k x;k gS o mDr LFkk;h fu;ksX;rk izek.k i= fnukad 01-12-2022 ds vk/kkj ij izkFkhZ dks nq?kZVuk dh fnukad ds 01 o"kZ ds Hkhrj&Hkhrj gh mDr fu;ksX;rk dkfjr gksuk izdV gksrk gSA 20- fnukad 25-02-2021 dh xkbZMykbZUl ds vuqlkj ;fn ikWfylh dh vof/k esa nq?kZVuk dkfjr gksrh gS o e`R;q o LFkk;h fu;ksX;rk ikWfylh vof/k ds mijkUr ijUrq nq?kZVuk ds 12 ekg ds Hkhrj gksrh gS rc Hkh ihfM+r LFkk;h fu;ksX;rk ds laca/k esa mijksDr ykHk izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gSA gLrxr ekeys esa ikWfylh vof/k fnukad 22-03-2022 ls fnukad 21-03-2023 rd dh gSA nq?kZVuk chek vof/k esa fnukad 20-04-2022 dks dkfjr gqbZ gS o LFkk;h fu;ksX;rk izek.k i= fnukad 01-12-2022 ds vuqlkj izkFkhZ dks LFkk;h fu;ksX;rk nq?kZVuk ds ,d o"kZ ds Hkhrj dkfjr gqbZ gSA vr% ekeys esa mijksDr of.kZr izko/kku ¼xkbZMykbZu½ ds vuqlkj izkFkhZ le bU';ksMZ 15 yk[k :i;s dh 85 izfr'kr jkf'k ¼LFkk;h fu;ksX;rk dh izfr'kr jkf'k½ izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh ekuk tkrk gSA izdj.k esa Lohd`r :i ls izkFkhZ dks vizkFkhZ chek dEiuh }kjk 7]50]000@&:i;s dh jkf'k vnk dh tk pqdh gSA vr% chek ikWfylh ds vuqlkj ih, doj QkWj vkWuj MªkbZoj dh le bU';ksMZ jkf'k 15 yk[k :i;s dh 85 izfr'kr jkf'k vFkkZr~ 12]75000@& :i;s 7]50]000@&:i;s dh [2026:RJ-JP:15793] (6 of 8) [CW-12868/2025] jkf'k lek;ksftr dh tkdj dqy 5]25]000@& :i;s dh jkf'k izkFkhZ dks fnyk;k tkuk U;k;laxr le>rs gSA 21- blds vfrfjDr i=koyh ij miyC/k nLrkostkr~ ls izdV gksrk gS fd izkFkhZ fnukad 21-04-2022 ls 04-05-2022 rd fufod gkWLihVy esa HkrhZ jgk gSA i=koyh ij izkFkhZ ds bZykt ls lacaf/kr gq, [kpsZ ds fcy vkfn izLrqr fd;s x;s gSA mDr bZykt ds [kpsZ dks /;ku esa j[krs gq, ge izkFkhZ dks fnukad 25-02-2021 dh vkbZ-vkj-Mh-,- dh LVS.MMZ ilZuy bDlhMsaV bU';ksjsal izksMDV dh xkbZMykbZUl dks /;ku esa j[krs gq, daUt;wesCyl ij [kpZ gqbZ jkf'k ds vfrfjDr dqy 50]000@& :i;s dh jkf'k bl izdkj dqy 5]75]000@& :i;s v{kjs ikap yk[k fipsgRrj gtkj :i;s fnyk;k tkuk Hkh U;k;laxr ikrs gSaA blh izdkj izkFkhZ dh vksj ls izLrqr fd;k x;k izkFkZuk i= vkf'kad :i ls Lohdkj fd;k tkdj fuEu vkns'k ikfjr fd;k tkuk mfpr le>rs gSA** 3.3 That the amount as awarded by the learned 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 learned 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. [2026:RJ-JP:15793] (7 of 8) [CW-12868/2025] (2) Every award of the Permanent Lok Adalat under this Act shall be deemed to be a decree of a civil court. (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." (emphasis supplied) 4. In summation of the above-noted, it can be jot down that the orders passed by the learned 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 learned 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 learned Permanent Lok Adalat are conclusive and final in nature, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present petition. [2026:RJ-JP:15793] (8 of 8) [CW-12868/2025] 5. In view of the aforementioned, the instant writ petition stands dismissed, being bereft of any merit. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. (SAMEER JAIN),J JKP/6