Money spent on litigation far in excess of stakes involved: HC rejects insurance firm’s plea

Read Order: The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd v. Daulat Ram and another 

Vivek Gupta

Chandigarh, July 13, 2021: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by the Oriental Insurance Company Limited challenging the award passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat (PLA) here directing it to pay over Rs 48,000 to an insured man for causing him mental agony, harassment and litigation charges after the theft of his scooter.

The insurance company’s plea was that there was a breach of condition of policy by the respondent No.1 as he allowed his grandson — a minor — to use the scooter for going to school. The minor grandson left the scooter with its keys therein, which shows negligence on the part of the insured, and hence the insurance company is entitled to repudiate the claim.

Taking into account the facts of the case, the PLA had observed that respondent no. 1’s grandson had parked the vehicle outside the premises of the school and due to heavy rains, he rushed inside the school. However, the allegation of keys being left in the scooter has been completely denied by respondent no. 1. 

The PLA had asked the insurance company to pay respondent no. 1 an amount of Rs.43,655 along with interest on account of theft of a scooter together with Rs.5000 each.

The Insurance Company’s counsel had submitted before the PLA that in view of the settled position of law, even if averments on behalf of respondent No.1 are accepted, in view of the negligence, he would, at best, be entitled to only 75% of the claim. 

The PLA, citing the Supreme Court judgment in Haryana Dairy Development Cooperative Federation Limited v. Jagdish Lal, had observed “that in many such cases money spent on litigation is far in excess of the stakes involved, besides, wasting valuable time and energy of the parties concerned as well as of the Court” and had passed appropriate orders. 

The bench of Justice Lisa Gill of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, hearing the matter, held that since a very petty amount is involved in the said case, the Court doesn’t find it a fit case for interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction.