CWP-11688-2026 CWP-11685-2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT 138 Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. (now known as Bajaj General Insurance Company Ltd.) Permanent Lok Adalat (PUS), Sonipat & others Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. (now known as Bajaj General Insurance Company Ltd.) Permanent Lok Adalat (PUS), Sonipat & others CORAM: Present: JAGMOHAN BANSAL 1. the same are hereby disposed of by this common order. For the sake of brevity and convenience, facts are borrowed from CWP 2. 226/227 of the Constitution of India is 30.01.2026 ‘PLA’) has directed to pay Rs.60,000/ @ 9% p.a. 3. Syndicate Bank Insurance 1 2026 & 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. known as Bajaj General Insurance Company Ltd.) Versus Permanent Lok Adalat (PUS), Sonipat & others CWP Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. (now known as Bajaj General Insurance Company Ltd.) Versus Permanent Lok Adalat (PUS), Sonipat & others Date of Decision: 20.04.2026 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Mr. Sachin Ohri and Mr. Sachin Gupta, Advocates, for the petitioner. JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral) As common issues are involved in the captioned petitions, the same are hereby disposed of by this common order. For the sake of brevity and convenience, facts are borrowed from CWP The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking quashing of order dated 30.01.2026 whereby learned Permanent Lok Adalat, Sonipat (for short ‘PLA’) has directed to pay Rs.60,000/- to the claimant @ 9% p.a. Respondent No.2-claimant Syndicate Bank-respondent No.3 from petitioner Insurance Company Ltd. (for short ‘insurance company’). Crop was IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-11688-2026 Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. …Petitioner known as Bajaj General Insurance Company Ltd.) Permanent Lok Adalat (PUS), Sonipat & others ...Respondents CWP-11685-2026 Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. …Petitioner (now known as Bajaj General Insurance Company Ltd.) Permanent Lok Adalat (PUS), Sonipat & others ...Respondents Date of Decision: 20.04.2026 JAGMOHAN BANSAL Sachin Ohri and Mr. Sachin Gupta, Advocates, As common issues are involved in the captioned petitions, the same are hereby disposed of by this common order. For the sake of brevity and convenience, facts are borrowed from CWP-11688-2026. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles seeking quashing of order dated earned Permanent Lok Adalat, Sonipat (for short to the claimant along with interest claimant got his crop insured through respondent No.3 from petitioner-Bajaj Allianz General (for short ‘insurance company’). Crop was As common issues are involved in the captioned petitions, the same are hereby disposed of by this common order. For the sake of The petitioner through instant petition under Articles seeking quashing of order dated earned Permanent Lok Adalat, Sonipat (for short with interest got his crop insured through Bajaj Allianz General (for short ‘insurance company’). Crop was VIMAL KUMAR 2026.04.20 18:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-11688-2026 CWP-11685-2026 insured by Insurance Yojna (PMFBY). The respondent amount in the account of insured. Inundation in agricultural fields led to destruction of crop. The respondent filed application under Section 22C of the Legal Servi learned PLA seeking compensation. Petitioner claimed that applicant was not insured with petitioner the compensation. Bank was supposed to enter farmer’s dat PMFBY portal on the basis of which insurance company could issue policies. Without portal data entry, there was no question of issuing a policy to the applicant by the insurance company. that bank has confirmed that premium wa however, insurer failed to perform its duty. The applica under PMFBY. 4. submits that both the petitions may be disposed of in terms of order dated 29.01.2026 passed by this Court in a bunch of writ petitions filed by the petitioner itself having lead case titled as Limited Vs. Amit & squarely covered by the aforesaid order. 5. petitioner terms of order dated 29.01.2026 passe 20.04.2026 Vimal 2 2026 & 2026 insured by Insurance Company under the Yojna (PMFBY). The respondent-bank re amount in the account of insured. Inundation in agricultural fields led to destruction of crop. The respondent filed application under Section 22C Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (for short ‘1987 Act’) before learned PLA seeking compensation. Petitioner claimed that applicant was not insured with petitioner-Insurance Company and is not liable to pay the compensation. Bank was supposed to enter farmer’s dat PMFBY portal on the basis of which insurance company could issue policies. Without portal data entry, there was no question of issuing a policy to the applicant by the insurance company. that bank has confirmed that premium wa however, insurer failed to perform its duty. The applica under PMFBY. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the petitions may be disposed of in terms of order dated 29.01.2026 passed by this Court in a bunch of writ petitions filed by the petitioner itself having lead case titled as Limited Vs. Amit & others’ CWP-1192 squarely covered by the aforesaid order. In the wake of statement of learned counsel for the petitioner-Insurance Company, both the petitions stand disposed of in terms of order dated 29.01.2026 passed by this Court in 20.04.2026 Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No ompany under the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima bank re-deposited deducted insured amount in the account of insured. Inundation in agricultural fields led to destruction of crop. The respondent filed application under Section 22C ces Authorities Act, 1987 (for short ‘1987 Act’) before learned PLA seeking compensation. Petitioner claimed that applicant was Insurance Company and is not liable to pay the compensation. Bank was supposed to enter farmer’s data on the PMFBY portal on the basis of which insurance company could issue policies. Without portal data entry, there was no question of issuing a policy to the applicant by the insurance company. Learned PLA has held that bank has confirmed that premium was forwarded to insurer, however, insurer failed to perform its duty. The applicant is covered Learned counsel for the petitioner-Insurance Company submits that both the petitions may be disposed of in terms of order dated 29.01.2026 passed by this Court in a bunch of writ petitions filed by the petitioner itself having lead case titled as ‘Bajaj General Insurance 1192-2026. Issue involved herein is In the wake of statement of learned counsel for the Insurance Company, both the petitions stand disposed of in d by this Court in Amit (supra). (JAGMOHAN BANSAL) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima insured amount in the account of insured. Inundation in agricultural fields led to destruction of crop. The respondent filed application under Section 22C ces Authorities Act, 1987 (for short ‘1987 Act’) before learned PLA seeking compensation. Petitioner claimed that applicant was Insurance Company and is not liable to pay a on the PMFBY portal on the basis of which insurance company could issue policies. Without portal data entry, there was no question of issuing a Learned PLA has held s forwarded to insurer, is covered Insurance Company submits that both the petitions may be disposed of in terms of order dated 29.01.2026 passed by this Court in a bunch of writ petitions filed by the ‘Bajaj General Insurance . Issue involved herein is In the wake of statement of learned counsel for the Insurance Company, both the petitions stand disposed of in ) VIMAL KUMAR 2026.04.20 18:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document