JUDGMENT 1. - By filing instant writ petition the petitioners have prayed to quash and set-aside the order dated 30.4.2009 passed by learned Permanent Lok Adaulat, Dausa in Complaint No. 31/2008 and the Insurance Company be exonerated from the liability to pay compensation and interest. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the vehicle No. RJ-14-1G-8587 was owned by respondent No. I and it was registered in his name on 27.2.2003 and the aforesaid vehicle was insured as goods carrying commercial from 6.2.2007 to 5.2.2008. The said vehicle was damaged on 31.1.2008 at 8.30 PM in an accident. An F.I.R. to this effect was lodged by the respondent No. 1 at Police Station Manpur and the intimation of the same was also given to the petitioners. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the respondent No. 1 submitted the claim on 13.2.2008 with the estimate of Rs. 12,65,000/-. Surveyor was appointed and he submitted his report on 7.3.2008 and in the aforesaid survey report he assessed for a sum of Rs. 3,48,500/- after deducting the wreck value of Rs. 3,00,000/- and policy excess clause of Rs. 1,500/-. The respondent No. 1 agreed to accept the said amount of loss as assessed by the Surveyor and has given a written consent vide letter dated 27.2.2008. Thereafter, the petitioner after receipt of final report got the matter investigated and asked for certain information from the respondent No. 1 regarding over-loading of the goods in the said vehicle at the time of loss. The respondent No. 1, in-spite of complying with the requirement asked for by the learned Permanent Lok Adaulat at Dausa The complaint was filed with the prayer to direct the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 4,50,000/- after deducting the wreck value of Rs. 2,00,000/- and Rs. 3,000/- as toying charges and Rs. 15,650/- towards the Insurance Company. Apart from above a sum of Rs. 50,000/- was also claimed towards mental and physical agony. The respondent No. 2 vide order dated 30.4.2009 allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 6,50,000/- towards the loss to the vehicle Rs. 23000/- as toying charges Rs. 15,680/- towards insurance premium after accident with 9% interest on all three amounts from 15.8.2008. It was further directed to pay Rs. The respondent No. 2 vide order dated 30.4.2009 allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 6,50,000/- towards the loss to the vehicle Rs. 23000/- as toying charges Rs. 15,680/- towards insurance premium after accident with 9% interest on all three amounts from 15.8.2008. It was further directed to pay Rs. 2,000/- each under the head of cost of complaint and mental and physical agony with 9% interest from 25.9.2008. The respondent No. 2 has directed that the said amount with interest if not paid within one month then the rate of Interest will be 12% per annum from the receptive date i.e. 15.8.2008 and 25.9.2008. 4. Hence this writ petition. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the respondent No. 2 has wrongly entertained the complaint of respondent No. 1 and wrongly awarded a sum of Rs. 6,50,000/- under the head of loss to the vehicle, though respondent No. 1 had given written consent for settlement of his claim. The respondent No. 2 has proceeded illegally by awarding compensation of 26,50,000/- towards the loss to the vehicle in view of the fact that the respondent No. I has violated the policy condition by not allowing the spot surveyor to physically verify the quantity of the load being transported in the vehicle at the time of accident. The respondent No. 2 has committed illegality in directing the petitioners to pay interest @ 9% from the date prior to the filing of the claim petition. Thus, the order dated 30.4.2009 passed by the learned Permanent Lok Adaulat, Dausa be quashed and set aside. 6. E-contra Mr. Mahesh Gupta and Mr. jagdish Prasad, appearing for the respondent No. 1 filed a detailed reply. He specifically mentioned in his reply that the driver of another truck was driving the same in rash and negligent manner and hit the truck of respondent No. 1 while coming in the wrong side and due to this reason the truck of respondent No. 1 totally damaged. The respondent No. 1 immediately lodged the F.I.R. and intimation was also given to the petitioners: The answering respondent No. 1 produced ample evidence before the learned Permanent Lok Adaulat regarding weight and even otherwise the accident took place due to the negligence of the another vehicle, therefore, there will be no occasion for the Surveyor to physically verify the goods. He submits that in the vehicle of respondent No. 1 the goods were in the prescribed limit i.e. 15 ton. The answering respondent No. 1 has not given any consent to the Surveyor as no original letter was produced by the petitioners and the so-called consent letter, which was filled, was not in the name of the Surveyor. Thus, the letter dated 27.2.2008 issued by the petitioner, is fabricated and no reliance can be placed upon the same. The respondent No. 1 mentioned in his reply that the petitioners have got no authority to ask the information from the respondent No. 1 as he had already supplied all the information's to the petitioners. He submits that as per the Section 21(2) of the Act the award made by lot Adaulat shall be final and binding upon the parties. The report submitted by the Surveyor cannot be made basis of compensation. The respondent No. 1 has not violated any terms and conditions of the Insurance Company. He submits that he had already submitted sufficient evidence along with affidavit of concerned parties before the-Permanent Lok Adaulat and after hearing both the parties and also considering the entire documents the Permanent Lok Adaulat passed the order dated 30.4.2009 passed by the Permanent Lok Adaulat needs no interference of this Court. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully scanned the entire material made available to me. 8. From a bare perusal of the facts of the case including the judgment passed by the Permanent Lok Adaulat, Dausa, in my considered view, the learned Permanent Lok Adaulat while passing the impugned order has considered each and every aspect of the matter and it has not committed an error in passing the same. Thus, the order dated 30.4.2009 passed by the learned Permanent Lok Adaulat, Dausa needs no interference of this Court. 9. In the result, the writ petition filed by the petitioners is devoid of merits and stands rejected. There will be no order as to costs.Petition dismissed. *******