[2026:RJ-JP:19911] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6286/2026 M/s Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company, 4, Hathroi Fort, Goapl Badi, Jaipur Through Branch Manager, Through Its Constituted Attorney. ----Petitioner Versus Rajshree Chhabra (Jain) W/o Late Shri Pramod Chhabra, Aged About 57 Years, Resident Of 4 Kha-15 Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur. ----Respondent Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6085/2026 The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office Pancham, S P-1, Apex Circle, Malviya Nagar Jaipur-302017 Through Branch Manager Through Its Constituted Attorney ----Petitioner Versus Rajshree Chhabra (Jain) W/o Late Shri. Pramod Chhabra, Aged About 57 Years, Resident 4Kha-15 Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur ----Respondent S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6549/2026 The New India Assurance Company Limited, B Unity Buildings, Annexe P. Kalinga Rao Road, Mission Road, Bangaluru - 560027 Through Deputy Manager/authorized Signatory Regional Office 2Nd Floor, Nehru Place, Tonk Road, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Rajshree Chhabra (Jain) Wife Of Late Shri Pramod Chhabra, Aged About 52 Years, Resident Of 4-Kha-15, Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur. 2. I.i.i. Surveyors And Loss Accessors, Insurance Institute Of Insurance Surveyors And Loss Adjustbes Office No. 104 And 106, First Floor, Saeed Plaza, La K Dika Pool, Hyderabad - 50004 Telangana. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prakhar Agarwal Mr. Sanjay Mishra [2026:RJ-JP:19911] (2 of 16) [CW-6286/2026] For Respondent(s) : Mr. D.D. Bansal Dr. Naveen Simatwal, Asst. Professor, SMS Hospital, Jaipur – present in person HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN JUDGMENT 1 Arguments concluded on 21/04/2026 2 Judgment Reserved on 21/04/2026 3 Full Judgment or Operative Part Pronounced Full Judgment 4 Pronounced on 16/05/2026 1. A batch of writ petitions, involving identical and overlapping questions of fact as well as common issues of law, has been placed before this Court. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, all these matters are taken up together for final adjudication at the stage of admission itself, in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and to ensure consistency in judicial determination. For the sake of convenience and clarity, for factual references, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6286/2026, titled M/s Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Rajshree Chhabra (Jain) is treated as the lead matter. The facts and legal issues arising therein are representative of the controversy involved in the connected petitions. It is made cautiously clear that the instant judgment shall be applicable on all the connected petitions on mutatis mutandis basis.The reliefs sought in the lead writ petition are reproduced hereunder for ready reference:– “i. By an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof, to set aside the Impugned Award dated 08.01.2026 (ANNEXURE-1) passed by the [2026:RJ-JP:19911] (3 of 16) [CW-6286/2026] Learned Permanent Lok Adalat, Jaipur Metropolitan - First, Jaipur in Case No. 217/2021 titled as "Rajshree Chhabra (Jain) v. M/s Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company; AND ii. Pass any other order(s), which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.; AND iii. Cost of the writ petition may please be awarded in favor of the Petitioner.” 2. The brief facts, as emerging from the record, and as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner are that for the period commencing from 26.04.2018 to 25.04.2019, the petitioner-Insurance Company issued two Premium Personal Guard Policies in favour of the insured, each carrying a sum insured of Rs. 60,00,000/- along with a bonus of Rs. 50,000/-. On 24.12.2018, it has been asserted by the respondent that the insured met with a fatal vehicular accident, allegedly caused due to rash and negligent driving of another vehicle, pursuant to which an FIR came to be registered at Police Station Bajaj Nagar, Jaipur. Subsequently, post- mortem examination was conducted; however, the FSL report was initially kept reserved. The Post-Mortem Report, nevertheless, specifically recorded the presence of multiple fatty depositions in and around the heart of the deceased. Thus, upon consideration of the PMR along with the FSL findings, the Medical Jurist, SMS Hospital, Jaipur opined that the cause of death was attributable to Chronic Ischemic Heart Disease and Atherosclerosis. 3. Subsequently, on 11.07.2019 the police submitted its final report, wherein it was concluded that the deceased had lost control over the insured vehicle, possibly on account of a chronic heart [2026:RJ-JP:19911] (4 of 16) [CW-6286/2026] condition, which resulted in a collision with another vehicle. In the aforesaid factual backdrop, upon scrutiny of the claim and examination of the relevant record, the petitioner-Insurance Company repudiated the claim on the ground that the case did not fall within the ambit of an ‘accident’ as contemplated under the terms of the insurance policy, as for any incident to fall within the ambit of ‘accident’ it is essential that the same had been ‘external, visible, and violent in nature’; however, since the cause of death was determined to be chronic heart disease, the instant case falls outside the parameters of ‘accident’. 4. Aggrieved by such repudiation, the complainant approached the learned Permanent Lok Adalat, which proceeded to allow the claim by directing the petitioner-Insurance Company to release the insured sum of Rs. 60,00,000/- along with interest @ 7% per annum, and further awarded Rs. 11,000/- as compensation towards the mental agony suffered. Therefore, being aggrieved of the same, and in in these circumstances, the petitioner-Insurance Company was compelled to file the present writ petition. It was apprised to the Court that the connected writ petitions arise out of similar factual and legal matrices and are, therefore, being considered conjointly. 5. It was further contended that ordinarily, this Court exercises restraint in interfering with the awards/orders passed by the learned Permanent Lok Adalat, being a forum constituted under an alternative dispute resolution mechanism, with the object of ensuring expeditious and amicable settlement of disputes. The scope of judicial review in such matters is, therefore, limited. [2026:RJ-JP:19911] (5 of 16) [CW-6286/2026] However, it is equally well-settled that in exceptional circumstances, where the impugned order is vitiated by patent arbitrariness, perversity, or manifest illegality, this Court, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction, may justifiably undertake judicial review. It was further contended that the provisions contained in Section 22C of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, which are reproduced hereunder, confer a degree of finality upon the proceedings before the Permanent Lok Adalat, thereby underscoring the conclusive nature of its determination:– “22C. Cognizance of cases by Permanent Lok Adalat.—(1) Any party to a dispute may, before the dispute is brought before any court, make an application to the Permanent Lok Adalat for the settlement of dispute: Provided that the Permanent Lok Adalat shall not have jurisdiction in respect of any matter relating to an offence not compoundable under any law: Provided further that the Permanent Lok Adalat shall also not have jurisdiction in the matter where the value of the property in dispute exceeds ten lakh rupees: Provided also that the Central Government, may by notification, increase the limit often lakh rupees specified in the second proviso in consultation with the Central Authority. (2) After an application is made under sub-section(1) to the Permanent Lok Adalat, no party to that application shall invoke jurisdiction of any court in the same dispute. (3) Where an application is made to a Permanent Lok Adalat under sub-section(1), it— (a) shall direct each party to the application to file before it a written statement, stating therein the facts and nature of dispute under the application, points or [2026:RJ-JP:19911] (6 of 16) [CW-6286/2026] issues in such dispute and grounds relied in support of, or in opposition to, such points or issues, as the case may be, and such party may supplement such statement with any document and other evidence which such party deems appropriate in proof of such facts and grounds and shall send a copy of such statement together with a copy of such document and other evidence, if any, to each of the parties to the application; (b) may require any party to the application to file additional statement before it at any stage of the conciliation proceedings; (c) shall communicate any document or statement received by it from any party to the application to the other party, to enable such other party to present reply thereto. (4) When statement, additional statement and reply, if any, have been filed under sub-section(3), to the satisfaction of the Permanent Lok Adalat, it shall conduct conciliation proceedings between the parties to the application in such manner as it thinks appropriate taking into account the circumstances of the dispute. (5) The Permanent Lok Adalat shall, during conduct of conciliation proceedings under sub-section(4), assist the parties in their attempt to reach an amicable settlement of the dispute in an independent and impartial manner. (6) It shall be the duty of the every party to the application to cooperate in good faith with the Permanent Lok Adalat in conciliation of the dispute relating to the application and to comply with the direction of the Permanent Lok Adalat to produce evidence and other related documents before it. (7) When a Permanent Lok Adalat, in the aforesaid conciliation proceedings, is of opinion that there exist elements of settlement in such proceedings which may [2026:RJ-JP:19911] (7 of 16) [CW-6286/2026] be acceptable to the parties, it may formulate the terms of a possible settlement of the dispute and give to the parties concerned for their observations and in case the parties reach at an agreement on the settlement of the dispute, they shall sign the settlement agreement and the Permanent Lok Adalat shall pass an award in terms thereof and furnish a copy of the same to each of the parties concerned. (8) Where the parties fail to reach at an agreement under sub-section (7), the Permanent Lok Adalat shall, if the dispute does not relate to any offence, decide the dispute.” 6. However, in the present case, the pivotal issue of law, as canvassed by both sides, pertains to the question of causation namely, whether the death of the insured can be said to have arisen out of an accident, or whether it was in fact the result of a pre-existing medical condition, i.e., chronic heart disease. It was contended that the loss of control over the vehicle by the deceased was not an independent accidental event, but rather a consequence of an underlying cardiac ailment. In other words, the argument proceeds on the basis that the medical condition preceded and precipitated the incident, and that the injuries sustained were merely consequential in nature. On this premise, it was submitted that the death in question cannot be brought within the ambit of an ‘accident’ as contemplated under the terms of the insurance policy, and consequently, the claim would fall ‘outside the scope of policy coverage’. 7. To conclude and substantiate the arguments made, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had placed reliance [2026:RJ-JP:19911] (8 of 16) [CW-6286/2026] upon the ratio encapsulated in United India Insurance Co. Vs. M/s. Harchand Rai : 2004 AIR (SC) 4794; Smt. Alka Shukla Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India : 2019 AIR (SC) 2088; The Manager ICICI Lobard Vs. Sivagami & Ors.: 2024 Accident Claims Journal 818. 8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent while placing reliance upon the factual findings recorded by the learned Permanent Lok Adalat in the order impugned itself, advanced the following submissions: 8.1 That as per the averments made in the complaint, the husband of the complainant, late Pramod Chhabra, on 24.12.2018, after dropping his relative at Gandhi Nagar Railway Station, was returning home in his; at about 6:00 AM, his vehicle collided with another taxi, as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries. He was immediately taken by ambulance to the Trauma Centre, where, upon examination, he was declared dead. 8.2 That the stand of the petitioner–Insurance Company, as reflected in its contentions, is not a denial of the occurrence of the accident. On the contrary, the accident itself is admitted; however, the Insurance Company has disputed only the cause of death, contending that the same occurred due to chronic ischemic heart disease (atherosclerosis) and not on account of injuries sustained in the accident. Thus, according to the respondent, the occurrence of the accident stands admitted and duly proved on record. [2026:RJ-JP:19911] (9 of 16) [CW-6286/2026] 9. Learned counsel submitted that the material available on record, both oral as well as documentary, clearly establishes that the accident did take place. The FIR lodged in respect of the incident was duly investigated by the police, and upon completion of investigation, a final report treating the incident as an accidental occurrence was submitted before the competent court. It was further contended that it is also an admitted position that the Insurance Company has repudiated the claim of the complainant, and the sole basis for such repudiation is the assertion that the death of the insured was not caused by injuries sustained in the accident but due to chronic heart disease. However, there is no cogent or documentary evidence available on record to establish that the deceased was suffering from such disease immediate prior to the accident, and that the said disease is the cause of death. 10. Learned counsel further submitted that from the factual matrix, it is evident that the deceased was alive and driving the vehicle at the time of the accident. There is no material on record to suggest that he had already suffered a heart attack or had died prior to the occurrence of the accident. It was also contended that albeit reliance was placed by the Insurance Company upon the opinion of the Medical Jurist, such opinion is not supported by any independent or corroborative documentary evidence showing that the deceased was suffering from the alleged disease and that no prior medical record, investigation, or treatment history has been brought on record, nor has any independent inquiry was conducted by the Insurance Company in this regard. [2026:RJ-JP:19911] (10 of 16) [CW-6286/2026] 11. Learned counsel further contended that that the opinion of a medical expert is not conclusive and cannot be treated as the last word on the subject. Such opinion is required to be tested on the touchstone of logic, objectivity, and supporting material, and in absence thereof, the Court is not bound to accept the same. It was further pointed out that the post-mortem report records that the death occurred on account of injuries sustained in a road accident. The inquest report (panchanama) also notes visible injuries on the body of the deceased, including bleeding from the nose, injury to the left eye, and swelling on the left jaw, and opines that the death occurred due to injuries sustained in the accident. Thus, it can be concluded that the findings recorded by the learned Permanent Lok Adalat are based on a detailed appreciation of evidence and material on record, and do not suffer from any perversity or illegality. Lastly, it was contended that the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is supervisory and limited in nature, and in absence of any jurisdictional error, patent perversity, or violation of principles of natural justice, no interference is warranted with the well-reasoned factual findings returned by the Tribunal. In support of the contentions made insofar, learned counsel had placed reliance upon a catena of judgments, inter alia, Bharat Watch Company Vs. National Insurance Company Limited : Civil Appeal No.3912/2019; and Alka Shukla Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India : (2019) 6 SCC 64. [2026:RJ-JP:19911] (11 of 16) [CW-6286/2026] 12. Upon considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel, having scrutinized the material on record in extenso, and having evaluated the judicial precedents proffered at the bar, the factual matrix and legal tenets requisite for a final determination are delineated hereinbelow: 12.1 At the outset, it is essential to jot down the relevant extract from the award impugned as passed by the learned Per- manent Lok Adalat; the same is reproduced here as under:- “11. पररवादीया का पररवाद मे यह कथन है कक पररवादीया का पकत मृतक पमोद छाबडा कदनांक 24.12.2018 को अपनी कार संखा आर०जे०-14- सी० टी०-3285 से अपने ररशेदार को गांधी नगर रेले सेशन पर छोडकर वाकपस घर आ रहे थे। तभी करीब सुबह 6.00 बजे कार को कार टैकी संखा आर 0 जे0-14-टी0 ई 0-2275 से टकर हो गयी, कजसके पररणामसरप मृतक के गंभीर चोटे आई कजससे उनको एमुलेन से ट्ोमा सेनर ले जाया गया, जहां पर डॉकरों ने उनका परीकण उपरांत उने मृत घोकषत कर कदया। कवपकी बीमा कमनी का इस संबंध मे अपने जवाब मे यह कथन है कक पररवाकदया के पकत की मृतु दुघरटना मे आयी चोटों के कारण नहीं हयी है बलल chronic ischaemic heart disease catheroscierosis के कारण हयी है। इस पकार कवपकी बीमा कमनी ने अपने अकभवचनों मे दुघरटना घकटत होने से इंकार नहीं ककया है एवं दुघरटना घकटत होना माना है, ककनु पमोद छाबडा की मृतु दुघरटना मे आयी चोटों के कारण नहीं होना बताया है। पतावली पर जो मौलखक व दसावेजी साक है उससे पकरण मे दुघरटना घकटत होना साकबत है। दुघरटना की पथम सूचना ररपोटर पर पुकलस दारा अनुसंधान कर नतीजा अकसात दुघरटना का मानकर नायालय मे पेश ककया गया है। अतः पकरण मे दुघरटना काररत होना सीकृ त व साकबत तथ है। 12. पकरण के तथों से यह भी सीकृ त तथ है कक कवपकी बीमा कमनी दारा पररवादीया का पशगत बीमा केम कनरस कर कदया गया। पशगत बीमा केम खाररज करने के संबंध मे कवपकी बीमा कमनी का यह कथन है कक पररवादीया के पकत की मृतु दुघरटना मे आयी चोटों के [2026:RJ-JP:19911] (12 of 16) [CW-6286/2026] पररणामसरप नहीं हई बलल chronic ischaemic heart disease catheroscierosis के कारण हयी है। बीकमत की मृतु का कारण उपरोक हाटर कडजीज थी। उपरोक बीमारी के कारण धमकनयां कसमट जाती है व उनमे खून व ऑकीजन का पवाह बहत कम हो जाता है व अंततः अचानक हदयाघात के कारण वलक की मृतु हो जाती है। हसगत पकरण के तथों मे यह सष है कक जब पररवादीया का पकत पमोद छाबडा अपनी कार से गांधी नगर रेले सेशन पर अपने ररशेदार को छोडकर वापस अपने घर जा रहा था तो उसकी कार दुघरटनागस हो गयी कजससे यह सष है कक कार चलाते समय व दुघरटना काररत होने से पहले मृतक पमोद छाबडा जीकवत अवसा मे था। पतावली पर ऐसी कोई पुकषकारक व दसावेजी साक उपलब नहीं है कक उसकी कार दुघरटनागस होने से पूवर ही पमोद छाबडा की मृतु हो चुकी हो। कवपकी बीमा ' कमनी का यह कथन है कक अंततः हदयाघात के कारण अचानक उक बीमारी मे मृतु हो जाती है एवं बीकमत की मृतु हाटर कडजीज के कारण हई है। पतावली पर ऐसी कोई पुकषकारक साक नहीं है कजससे यह साकबत होता हो कक मृतक पमोद छाबडा को हदयाघात दुघरटना से पूवर ही हआ हो। इस संभावना से भी इनकार नहीं ककया जा सकता कक दुघरटना के पररणामसरप अथवा दुघरटना मे आयी चोटों के पररणामसरप पमोद छाबडा को हदयाघात हआ हो। कवपकी बीमा कमनी दारा पमोद छाबडा को जो बीमारी बतायी गयी है उससे बीकमत पमोद छाबडा पूवर मे गकसत या पीकडत रहे हों ऐसी भी कोई पुकषकारक दसावेजी साक कवपकी बीमा कमनी की ओर से पतावली पर पेश नहीं की गयी है। मृतक के जो तेथाककथत बीमारी बतायी गयी है उस बीमारी के संबंध मे कोई पुकषकारक व दसावेजी साक पतावली पर नहीं है। इस बाबत् कवपकी बीमा कमनी दारा कोई अनुसंधानकतार कनयुक कर अनुसंधान भी नहीं कराया गया है ना ही पतावली पर मृतक पमोद पुकषकारक रप से साकबत होता हो कक मृतक पूवर मे उक बीमारी से पीकडत था। दुघरटना घकटत होने से पूवर ही उक बीमारी के कारण पररवादीया के पकत पमोद छाबडा की मृतु हो चुकी हो, ऐसा साकबत नहीं होता है। कवपकी बीमा कमनी ने अपनी कललखत बहस मे मेकडकल जूररस, कचककता अकधकारी की ररपोटर को आधार बनाया है कजसके अनुसार पमोद छाबडा की मृतु chronic ischaemic heart disease catheroscierosis हाटर कडजीज के कारण होना बताया है, ककनु उपरोक तथाककथत बीमारी जो मेकडकल जूररस दारा बतायी गयी है उस बीमारी से पीकडत मृतक पमोद छाबडा [2026:RJ-JP:19911] (13 of 16) [CW-6286/2026] के गकसत होने के संबंध मे कोई दसावेजी साक पतावली पर उपलब नहीं है। पररवादी की ओर से पसुत नाकयक दषांत सेट ऑफ हररयाणा बनाम भागीरथ व अन मे पाररत कनणरय कदनांक 12 मई 1999 मे माननीय नायालय मे यह पकतपाकदत ककया है कक The Opinion given by a medical witness need not be the last word on the subject. Such opinion shall be tested by the court. If the opinion is benefit of logic or objectivity, court is not obliged to go by that opinion. हसगत पकरण मे मेकडकल जूररस दारा जो राय वक की गयी है उसके संबंध मे कोई पुकषकारक साक अथवा दसावेजी साक नहीं है। पोसमाटरम ररपोटर मे मृतक पमोद छाबडा की मृतु कदनांक 24.12. 2018 को सडक दुघरटना मे आयी चोटों के कारण हई है यह अंककत है। मृतक के पंचनामे के अनुसार मृतक की नांक से खून कनकला हआ है , मृतक की बांयी आंख पर चोट लगकर खून कनकला हआ है , मृतक के बाये जबडे मे सूजन है। उक पंचनामे मे पंचों की राय के अनुसार सडक दुघरटना मे आयी चोटों के कारण मृतक की मृतु हई है। 13. पतावली पर जो दसावेजी साक पेश की गयी है उसमे दुघरटना के संबंध मै पुकलस दारा ककये गये अनुसंधान बाबत् दसावेज भी पेश ककये गये है कजसके अनुसार मृतक बीमारी की वजह से वाहन पर कनयंतण खो बैठा कजससे यह दुघरटना घकटत हई। इस पकार पुकलस अनुसंधान से भी दुघरटना काररत होना सीकृ त लसकत है , ककनु मृतक बीमारी की वजह से वाहन पर कनयंतण खो बैठा हो इस कनषषर का कोई आधार पतावली पर उपलसत नहीं है। यह माना भी कलया जाए कक पीकडत मेकडकल जूररस दारा बतायी गयी बीमारी से पीकडत था तो भी मृतक ने वाहन चलाने मे उक बीमारी के कारण ही कनयंतण खोया हो यह साकबत व सष नहीं होता है , ना ही इसका कोई आधार पतावली पर है। पतेक दुघरटना के पीछे कोई ना कोई कारण अवश होता है। हो सकता है कक हसगत पकरण मे देशी मृतक अपने वाहन पर कनयंतण खो बैठा हो और इस कारण दुघरटना घकटत हई हो , ककनु मृतक ने वाहन पर कनयंतण उक बीमारी के कारण ही खोया हो इसकी पुकष मे कोई पुकषकारक साक व आधार पतावली पर नहीं है। जब तक कक कनकवरवाकदत रप से यह साकबत नहीं कर कदया जाये कक मृतक ने वाहन [2026:RJ-JP:19911] (14 of 16) [CW-6286/2026] पर कनयंतण कवपकी बीमा कमनी के अकभवचनानुसार उक बीमारी के कारण ही खोया हो । 14. उपरोक कववेचनानुसार कवपकी बीमा कमनी अपने अकभवचनों को साकबत करने मे असफल रही है एवं कवपकी बीमा कमनी दारा पररवादीया का हसगत पकरण मे बीमा केम खाररज ककया जाना सेवादोष की शेणी मे आता है और कवपकी बीमा कमनी दारा पररवादीया का बीमा केम खाररज करने मे पररवादीया के पकत सेवादोष काररत ककया गया है। 15. अतः पररवादीया का यह पररवाद कवरद कवपकी बीमा कमनी सीकार योग पाया है।" 12.2 The learned Permanent Lok Adalat has, upon due appreciation of the material placed on record, taken note of the following aspects: 12.2.1 It has been observed that on 24.12.2018, the deceased was himself driving the vehicle and was in a normal and healthy condition at the relevant time. During the course of such driving, his vehicle was hit by another car, which fact stands substantiated from the FIR as well as the final report submitted by the police. The record further reflects that the deceased sustained serious injuries, was immediately shifted to the Trauma Centre by ambulance, and was thereafter declared dead. 12.2.2 The learned Permanent Lok Adalat has further recorded that there is no tangible or cogent material on record to suggest that the death of the deceased, Pramod Chhabra, occurred prior to the accident. It has also been noted that the possibility of cardiac failure having been triggered on account of the injuries sustained in the accident, followed by cardiac arrest, cannot be ruled out. [2026:RJ-JP:19911] (15 of 16) [CW-6286/2026] Additionally, the Tribunal has observed that no evidence has been brought on record by the Insurance Company to establish that the deceased had been undergoing any prior treatment for heart disease. 12.2.3 The learned Permanent Lok Adalat has also held that the opinion rendered by the Medical Jurist is not supported by any corroborative documentary evidence and, therefore, cannot be treated as conclusive or the final word on the cause of death. On the contrary, the post-mortem report clearly reflects that the deceased had sustained grievous injuries, including bleeding from the nose, injury to the left eye, and swelling over the face. The panchanama further records that the cause of death was attributable to injuries sustained in the accident. 13. This Court has interacted with the concerned Doctor, namely Dr. Naveen Simatwal, who was present-in-person, and he was not able to overrule/refute the findings recorded in the impugned order. 14. On an overall consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the findings recorded by the learned Permanent Lok Adalat have been found to be reasoned and justified. The repudiation of the claim by the Insurance Company, in the given circumstances, appears to be based on presumptive grounds, particularly when the sequence of events-namely, the deceased driving the vehicle, the occurrence of the accident, the sustaining of injuries, and the subsequent death-stands duly established on record. [2026:RJ-JP:19911] (16 of 16) [CW-6286/2026] 15. Thus, in view of the ratio encapsulated in Bharat Watch Company (supra), Alka Shukla (supra), and Manmohan Nanda v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8336/2015 the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any perversity or illegality in the findings recorded by the learned Permanent Lok Adalat. It is also noteworthy that the judgments relied upon by the petitioner are distinguishable on facts and do not advance its case. Consequently, no ground for interference is made out in exercise of writ jurisdiction, and all the writ petitions, being devoid of merit, are accordingly dismissed. 16. No orders are made as to costs. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed. 17. A copy of present judgment be placed in the connected petitions. (SAMEER JAIN), J. Sudhir/Preeti Asopa