JUDGMENT By the Court.—Learned Counsel for the petitioner is permitted to delete the words ‘State of U.P. through’ from the array of opposite party No. 1 2. Heard Sri Anil Kumar Srivastava learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Tarun Kumar Misra learned Counsel for opposite party Nos. 2 and 3. 3. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition against the rejection of his insurance claim in respect of a Maruti car, which was stolen on 12.1.2006 and could not be found by the police. 4. Brief facts of the case are that Maruti 800 A.C. car having registration No. U.P.-32 BC-2997 was purchased by the petitioner’s father late Krishna Pal Singh on 16.5.2004. The vehicle was got insured with the United India Insurance Company Ltd. Gomti Nagar Branch, Lucknow initially for a period of one year and thereafter the policy was renewed on 16.5.2005 for another year and, as such, was effective till mid night of 15.5.2006. Unfortunately, the father of the petitioner expired on 22.7.2005 and thereafter the vehicle was stolen on 12.1.2006 in respect whereof an F.I.R. was lodged by the petitioner, in which police submitted final report. The petitioner on submission of the final report by the police made a claim before the Insurance Company-respondent No. 3 but the same was rejected vide order dated 14.7.2006 Annexure-14 to the writ petition on the ground of non-compliance of condition No. 9 of Private Car Package Policy. The petitioner thereupon, represented to the Public Grievance Cell of respondent No. 3 that the condition No. 9 of the policy as alleged, was not made available with the policy and, therefore, the claim is not liable to be rejected and it should be reconsidered. However, the Insurance Company vide letter dated 8.9.2006 refused to intervene on the ground that the rejection of the claim is valid. Under the above circumstances, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the impugned orders dated 8.9.2006 and 14.7.2006 Annexure 16 and 14 to the writ petition and further seeking a direction to the respondents to settle the claim forthwith. 5. It is admitted that the vehicle was registered in the name of the petitioner’s father and the insurance policy was valid up to 15.5.2006. The father of the petitioner expired on 22.7.2005, whereupon the petitioner submitted necessary information both to the Road Transport Authority and the Insurance Company on 24.8.2005. 5. It is admitted that the vehicle was registered in the name of the petitioner’s father and the insurance policy was valid up to 15.5.2006. The father of the petitioner expired on 22.7.2005, whereupon the petitioner submitted necessary information both to the Road Transport Authority and the Insurance Company on 24.8.2005. The petitioner requested the Road Transport Authority to transfer the vehicle in his name and the Insurance Company to substitute his name in place of his father. However, the matter could not be pursued by him and no action in furtherance of the above letters was taken by either of the parties. The petitioner has filed the copy of the policy, which was supplied to him as Annexure-2 to the writ petition. The said policy does not contain any condition No. 9, on the basis of which the claim of the petitioner has been rejected. In fact the policy as filed by the petitioner is incomplete and is without attachment, which contain the conditions of the policy. The petitioner submits that the conditions attached to the policy was not supplied with the Policy. 6. The stand of the Insurance Company in the counter- affidavit is that condition No. 9 of the policy provides that the policy would continue to remain in force for a period of three months from the date of the death of the sole insured and it is obligatory upon the heirs of the deceased insured to get the policy transferred in their names during the said period of three months, failing which it shall lapse. Condition No. 9 of the Private Car Package Policy, which is said to be a part of the insurance policy, is quoted below : “In the event of death of the sole insured, this policy will not immediately lapse but will remain valid for a period of three months from the date of the death of insured or until the expiry of this policy (whichever is earlier). During the said period, legal heir(s) of the insured to whom the custody and use of the Motor Vehicle passes may apply to have this Policy transferred to the name(s) of the heir(s) or obtain a new insurance policy for the Motor Vehicle.” 7. In the counter-affidavit the Insurance Company has nowhere stated specifically that the conditions attached to the policy were in fact supplied to the insured. 8. In the counter-affidavit the Insurance Company has nowhere stated specifically that the conditions attached to the policy were in fact supplied to the insured. 8. The petitioner in para 7 and 23 of the rejoinder-affidavit has categorically stated that at the time of issuing the insurance policy, no condition No. 9 of the Private Car Package Policy, was provided by the Insurance Company, which has been filed by it along with the counter-affidavit. The petitioner in the supplementary affidavit has further stated that the original policy as was provided to his father, was collected by Sri A.K. Srivastava, Surveyor of the Insurance Company and has not been returned. The policy had no conditions attached to it. The Insurance Company filed a supplementary counter-affidavit to the said affidavit but it has nowhere been stated that the said conditions were attached and supplied along with the insurance policy. 9. In the supplementary rejoinder-affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner, it has again been reiterated that the conditions of the policy, as it is alleged to be attached, were never given to the petitioner’s father along with the policy. 10. The Insurance Company despite sufficient opportunity has not cared and come forward to specifically controvert the fact of non-supply of the conditions of the policy or that they were actually supplied to the petitioner’s late father. 11. The original insurance policy as issued has not been produced by either of the parties. The petitioner alleges that it has been taken away by the Surveyor of the insurance company and is not in his possession. The insurance company has not cared to verify the said fact or to obtain it from the Surveyor and has not even produced its office copy. Only a computer generated copy of the policy has been produced, which does not in any way show or establish that the conditions alleged to be attached with the policy, were ever supplied to the petitioner’s father. 12. The apex Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. M.K.J. Corporation, (1996) 6 SCC 428 , has held that the insurer has a duty to act in good faith and if the terms of the policy are not fully disclosed to the insured at the time of entering in to the contract of the insurance, the insurer cannot be permitted to rely upon such conditions, which have not been disclosed. Thus, we are of the opinion that once the insurance company has failed to disclose the condition No. 9 to the insured at the time of issuing the insurance policy, the claim of the petitioner was not liable to be rejected on that ground. 13. The Supreme Court in the case of L.I.C. of India and another v. Consumer Education and Research Centre and others, JT 1995 (4) SC 366, has held that any one sided condition in the insurance policy, which on the face of it are irrational and arbitrary, are amenable to judicial review. The insurance company has insured the vehicle and as such took an obligation to compensate the owner of the vehicle with the loss suffered by him due to happening of any of the events enumerated in the policy such as theft. The insurance company has not insured the owner of the vehicle and therefore, death of the owner of vehicle would in no way effect the obligation of the insurance company, which it had taken upon itself while entering into the contract of insurance. There is no dispute that the petitioner is a natural successor of the owner of vehicle and, therefore, in all fairness the insurance company ought to have compensated him. The alleged condition No. 9 of the insurance policy as such also appears to be totally unreasonable and unjust. The purpose of contract law is not simply to create conditions of liability but also to respond to the social needs. Therefore, even if such condition existed in the policy, the same is liable to be ignored being one sided and irrational. 14. In view of the above, writ petition succeeds and is allowed. A writ in the nature of certiorari is issued quashing the order dated 14.7.2006 contained in Annexure-14 to the writ petition and order dated 8.9.2006 contained in Annexure-16 to the writ petition and a writ of mandamus is issued commanding the opposite parties M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. to settle the claim of the petitioner in accordance with law ignoring the alleged condition No. 9 in the Insurance Policy as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before it. Under these circumstance there shall be no order as to costs. ————