JUDGMENT Sabina, J.:-United India Insurance Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Insurance Company’) has filed this writ petition for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned Award dated 5.7.2007 (Annexure P3) passed by the Presiding Officer, Permanent Lok Adalat, Public Utility Services, Hisar (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Lok Adalat’). 2. Case of the complainant-Nirmala, as stated in the complaint (Annexure P1) in brief is that she has purchased a motor cycle bearing No. HR21-B9873 in the year 2005. The said motorcycle was insured with the Insurance Company from 21.4.2005 to 20.4.2006. On 23.1.2006, Agnish, husband of complainant, while driving the motor cycle in question met with an accident near village Khandakheri, Tehsil Hansi, District Hisar. Rajbir Singh was sitting on the pillon seat. FIR No.30 dated 24.1.2006 was registered with the Police of Sadar, Hansi against Rattan Singh, son of Milakpur driver of Tata 407 bearing No. HR46-6130. 3. The Insurance Company, however, failed to pay the claim on account of accidental loss as per the insurance policy. Hence, Nirmala filed a complaint under Section 22-C of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987. 4. Lok Adalat vide its award dated 5.7.2007 (Annexure P3) has held as under:- “It is the case of the respondent company that in this case the fault for the accident was that of a driver of the TATA 407 bearing Registration No. HR-466130 according to FIR. Suffice to say that accident was not caused in this case for any fault of the driver of the motorcycle. The issuance of the regular driving licence subsequently to Agniesh shows that he was not disqualified rather he was qualified for issuance of driving licence. Looked from any angle we find that the refusal of the Insurance Company to pay the amount of repair to the petitioner is not justified at all. It amounts to deficiency of service. 15. Now, we come to the amount, to which the petitioner is entitled. The bills in respect of the repair etc. are Ex.P3 and Ex.P.4. These shows the amount spent by the petitioner through Agniesh on the repair of the motorcycle is Rs.8498/-. There is nothing on record to show that the amount is excessive. The insurance Company has not led any evidence on this aspect whereas, the petitioner has examined Nirmla Devi PW-1 who has proved bills of the repair charges. These shows the amount spent by the petitioner through Agniesh on the repair of the motorcycle is Rs.8498/-. There is nothing on record to show that the amount is excessive. The insurance Company has not led any evidence on this aspect whereas, the petitioner has examined Nirmla Devi PW-1 who has proved bills of the repair charges. The photographs of the motorcycle are Ex.RW-2/A to RW2/C. 16. We find that the petitioner is entitled to whole amount of Rs.8498/-. The amount is rounded of Rs.8500/-. The issue is decided in favour of the petitioner and it is held that according to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, the petitioner is entitled to recover Rs.8500/- from the respondent company on the basis of the insurance policy in favour of the petitioner. This issue is decided in favour of the petitioner. 17. Relief. ISSUE NO.2 The petitioner was entitled to this amount found by us due to her under issue no.1. The Insurance Company refused to pay this amount without any justification. We find that the petitioner is entitled to interest @ 12 percent per annum from the date of the submission of the claim by the petitioner with the respondent to the date of actual payment. However, we give concession to the Insurance Company in the rate of interest. In case the Insurance Company respondent makes the payment of the original amount of Rs.8500/- within two months from the date of this award, it shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 10 percent only. It is made clear that failure of the respondent company to make the payment of the amount along with concessional rate of interest within a period of two months, would make the respondent liable to payment of interest at @ 12 percent.” 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the instant petition is devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed. 6. Complainant - Nirmala had filed own damage claim on account of damages suffered by the motorcycle in the alleged accident. Admittedly, the motorcycle in question was insured with the Insurance Company from 21.4.2005 to 20.4.2006. The accident in question had taken place on 20.1.2006 during the subsistence of the insurance policy. FIR with regard to the accident was lodged against the driver of the Tata 407 bearing No.HR46-6130. Admittedly, the motorcycle in question was insured with the Insurance Company from 21.4.2005 to 20.4.2006. The accident in question had taken place on 20.1.2006 during the subsistence of the insurance policy. FIR with regard to the accident was lodged against the driver of the Tata 407 bearing No.HR46-6130. The accident had not taken place due to the negligence of the driver of the motor cycle. The Lok Adalat has awarded a sum of Rs. 8500/- with regard to the damages suffered by the motor cycle. The amount awarded by the Lok Adalat, vide Annexure P3, being small calls for no interference by this Court in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. ------------------