JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against order dated 30.04.2010 passed by Permanent Lok Adalat, District Barmer, whereby, the dispute filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 has been accepted and the petitioner-Company has been directed to accept the premium of the policy and renew the same for the period 13.10.2005 to 12.10.2006 and pay a sum of Rs. 21,540/- to the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 2. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed an application, though titled as under Section 22A, essentially under Section 22C of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 ('the Act'), inter alia, with the averments that the respondents were holding joint medi-claim insurance policy from the petitioner Company for over 13-14 years and the same was renewed for the period 13.10.2004 to 12.10.2005; before the period of policy was over, on 10.10.2005, the respondent No. 1 approached the petitioner Company with cash amount of Rs. 7,401/- and sought renewal of the policy, which was refused; where after, the respondent No. 1 gave a telegram on 11.10.2005 calling upon the petitioner Company to bear the responsibility and where after on 12.10.2005 sent a cheque dated 10.10.2005 for a sum of Rs. 8,000/- by registered post acknowledgement due along with a letter calling upon the petitioner Company to renew the policy for the period 13.10.2005 to 12.10.2006, which envelope was received back with the report of refusal; where after, respondent No. 1 sent communications dated 26.10.2005 to the petitioner Company, which were not replied and again notice along with amount of premium were sent on 03.03.2006 seeking renewal; it was claimed that respondent No. 1 fell ill and had to undergo treatment and spent a sum of Rs. 19,750/-; it was prayed that the petitioner Company be directed to renew the policy for the period 13.10.2005 to 12.10.2006 and for further period as and when the same fell due for renewal and pay a sum of Rs. 21,540/- along with expenses. 3. The petitioner Company filed reply and except for issuance of policy denied the averments made in the complaint. 4. 21,540/- along with expenses. 3. The petitioner Company filed reply and except for issuance of policy denied the averments made in the complaint. 4. After evidence was led by the parties, the Lok Adalat came to the conclusion that as the amount was sent to the petitioner Company by cheque before expiry of the period of policy in terms of provisions of Section 64 VB of the Insurance Act, 1938, the Insurance Company was liable for renewal of the policy and, as it failed to renew the policy, directed the petitioner Company to accept the premium and renew the same and further make payment of a sum of Rs. 21,540/- to the respondents. 5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner Company that the Permanent Lok Adalat was not justified in accepting the claim of the respondents, inasmuch as, there was no sufficient proof of approaching the petitioner Company on 10.10.2005 and further without scrutiny of the claim made by the petitioner Company, the claim has been accepted by the Permanent Lok Adalat, which also cannot be sustained. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents caveators supported the order impugned and produced before the Court the original envelop, which was returned back by the Post Office with the endorsement of refusal. 7. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material placed on record along with record of Lok Adalat. 8. From the evidence produced by the respondents, it is apparent that the respondents had approached the petitioner Company on 10.10.2005 as otherwise there was no reason for the respondents to send a telegram on 11.10.2005 and cheque along with other documents by registered post on 12.10.2005 undertaking expenses for sending the same; a look at the envelop produced by the respondents also reveals that the same contained the cheque dated 10.10.2005, which clearly shows the bona fides of the respondents in his efforts for getting the policy renewed. In the circumstances of the case, no interference is called for in the findings recorded by the Lok Adalat in this regard. 9. So far as the submissions made by learned counsel regarding not providing opportunity to scrutinise the claim are concerned, though there is substance in the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner Company, however, looking to the meager amount of Rs. 9. So far as the submissions made by learned counsel regarding not providing opportunity to scrutinise the claim are concerned, though there is substance in the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner Company, however, looking to the meager amount of Rs. 21,540/- and the time gap i.e. 10 years for the date the claim was made involved in the matter, the said direction of the Lok Adalat also does not call for any interference. 10. In view of the above discussion, the writ petition filed by the petitioner Company has no substance and the same is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs.Petition dismissed. *******