Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Permanent Lok Adalat (PUS), Sonipat & Ors.

JAGMOHAN BANSAL CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL CORAM: Present: Sachin Ohri and Mr. Sachin Gupta, Advocates, Mr. Sachin Ohri and Mr. Sachin Gupta, Advocates, for the petitioner. JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral) JAGMOHAN BANSAL

#1. As common issues are involved in the captioned petitions, As common issues are involved in the captioned petitions, As common issues are involved in the captioned petitions, the same are hereby disposed of by this common order. For the sake of the same are hereby disposed of by this common order. For the sake of the same are hereby disposed of by this common order. For the sake of the same are hereby disposed of by this common order. For the sake of brevity and convenience, facts are borrowed from CWP-11688-2026. brevity and convenience, facts are borrowed from CWP brevity and convenience, facts are borrowed from CWP

#2. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles The petitioner through instant petition under Articles The petitioner through instant petition under Articles seeking quashing of order dated 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking quashing of order dated seeking quashing of order dated 226/227 of the Constitution of India is earned Permanent Lok Adalat, Sonipat (for short 30.01.2026 whereby learned Permanent Lok Adalat, Sonipat (for short earned Permanent Lok Adalat, Sonipat (for short 30.01.2026 ‘PLA’) has directed to pay Rs.60,000/- to the claimant ‘PLA’) has directed to pay Rs.60,000/ with interest to the claimant along with interest @ 9% p.a. @ 9% p.a.

#3. Respondent No.2-claimant got his crop insured through claimant got his crop insured through Syndicate Bank-respondent No.3 from petitioner Syndicate Bank Bajaj Allianz General respondent No.3 from petitioner-Bajaj Allianz General (for short ‘insurance company’). Crop was Insurance Company Ltd. (for short ‘insurance company’). Crop was (for short ‘insurance company’). Crop was Insurance VIMAL KUMAR 2026.04.20 18:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-11688-2026 2026 & 2026 CWP-11685-2026 2 insured by Insurance Company under the insured by Insurance Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima ompany under the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna (PMFBY). The respondent-bank re Yojna (PMFBY). The respondent insured bank re-deposited deducted insured amount in the account of insured. Inundation in agricultural fields led to amount in the account of insured. Inundation in agricultural fields led to amount in the account of insured. Inundation in agricultural fields led to amount in the account of insured. Inundation in agricultural fields led to destruction of crop. The respondent filed application under Section 22C destruction of crop. The respondent filed application under Section 22C destruction of crop. The respondent filed application under Section 22C destruction of crop. The respondent filed application under Section 22C of the Legal Servi ces Authorities Act, 1987 (for short ‘1987 Act’) before Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (for short ‘1987 Act’) before ces Authorities Act, 1987 (for short ‘1987 Act’) before learned PLA seeking compensation. Petitioner claimed that applicant was learned PLA seeking compensation. Petitioner claimed that applicant was learned PLA seeking compensation. Petitioner claimed that applicant was learned PLA seeking compensation. Petitioner claimed that applicant was Insurance Company and is not liable to pay not insured with petitioner-Insurance Company and is not liable to pay Insurance Company and is not liable to pay not insured with petitioner a on the the compensation. Bank was supposed to enter farmer’s data on the the compensation. Bank was supposed to enter farmer’s dat the compensation. Bank was supposed to enter farmer’s dat PMFBY portal on the basis of which insurance company could issue PMFBY portal on the basis of which insurance company could issue PMFBY portal on the basis of which insurance company could issue PMFBY portal on the basis of which insurance company could issue policies. Without portal data entry, there was no question of issuing a policies. Without portal data entry, there was no question of issuing a policies. Without portal data entry, there was no question of issuing a policies. Without portal data entry, there was no question of issuing a Learned PLA has held policy to the applicant by the insurance company. Learned PLA has held policy to the applicant by the insurance company. policy to the applicant by the insurance company. s forwarded to insurer, that bank has confirmed that premium was forwarded to insurer, that bank has confirmed that premium wa that bank has confirmed that premium wa is covered however, insurer failed to perform its duty. The applicant is covered however, insurer failed to perform its duty. The applica however, insurer failed to perform its duty. The applica under PMFBY. under PMFBY.

#4. Insurance Company Learned counsel for the petitioner-Insurance Company Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the petitions may be disposed of in terms of order dated submits that both the petitions may be disposed of in terms of order dated submits that both the petitions may be disposed of in terms of order dated 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 29.01.2026 passed by this Court in a bunch of writ petitions filed by the 29.01.2026 passed by this Court in a bunch of writ petitions filed by the 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 petitioner itself having lead case titled as petitioner itself having lead case titled as ‘Bajaj General Insurance Limited Vs. Amit & others’ CWP-1192 Limited Vs. Amit & . Issue involved herein is 1192-2026. Issue involved herein is squarely covered by the aforesaid order. squarely covered by the aforesaid order.

#5. In the wake of statement of learned counsel for the In the wake of statement of learned counsel for the In the wake of statement of learned counsel for the Insurance Company, both the petitions stand disposed of in petitioner-Insurance Company, both the petitions stand disposed of in Insurance Company, both the petitions stand disposed of in petitioner terms of order dated 29.01.2026 passed by this Court in terms of order dated 29.01.2026 passe d by this Court in Amit (supra).

20.04.2026 20.04.2026 Vimal ) (JAGMOHAN BANSAL) JUDGE VIMAL KUMAR 2026.04.20 18:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No