Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Through General Manager Head Office, … vs Neeraj Yadav S/O Sh. Pankaj Yadav … on 16 April, 2026
[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/-
(Uploaded on 22/04/2026 at 07:57:36 AM)
(Downloaded on 22/04/2026 at 10:56:30 PM)
[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(Uploaded on 22/04/2026 at 07:57:36 AM)
(Downloaded on 22/04/2026 at 10:56:30 PM)
[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(Uploaded on 22/04/2026 at 07:57:36 AM)
(Downloaded on 22/04/2026 at 10:56:30 PM)
[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. – –
(Uploaded on 22/04/2026 at 07:57:36 AM)
(Downloaded on 22/04/2026 at 10:56:30 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:15793] (5 of 8) [CW-12868/2025]
5. – –
6. – –
7. – –
8. – –
9. – –
10. – –
11. – –
12. Any other permanent Percentage as
partial disablement 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
(Uploaded on 22/04/2026 at 07:57:36 AM)
(Downloaded on 22/04/2026 at 10:56:30 PM)
[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.
(Uploaded on 22/04/2026 at 07:57:36 AM)
(Downloaded on 22/04/2026 at 10:56:30 PM)
[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.
(Uploaded on 22/04/2026 at 07:57:36 AM)
(Downloaded on 22/04/2026 at 10:56:30 PM)
[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
(Uploaded on 22/04/2026 at 07:57:36 AM)
(Downloaded on 22/04/2026 at 10:56:30 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)