ORDER : M.N. BHANDARI, J. 1. By this writ petition, a challenge is made to the order dated 13.04.2006, passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Tonk whereby, application under section 22-C of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 has been dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after taking insurance, the goods were to be transported to Jawahar Lal Nehru Port Trust (J.N.P.T.) Mumbai. At the first instance, the transport was made to Punjab State Warehousing Corporation, Draungiri, Navi Mumbai (P.W.C.). The goods were received at P.W.C. On 22.07.2002. It was further transported to J.N.P.T by a trolly bearing No. MH-04-F2895. It met with an accident and, the claim was lodged immediately thereupon. It has been denied by the Permanent Lok Adalat mainly on the grounds that the claim is not covered, once the goods reached to P.W.C., Navi Mumbai. It is also on the ground that after receiving the goods at P.W.C. on 22.07.2002, claim was not maintainable after expiry of period of seven days. And lastly, that even as per the report of the Surveyor, the goods were manhandled thus petitioner is not entitled to the claim. All the three grounds taken by the Permanent Lok Adalat are contrary to the policy and the facts on record. As per the policy, insurance of the goods was by train or by road upto the destination. The destination in this case was not P.W.C., Navi Mumbai but J.N.P.T. The accident took place before the material/goods reached to J.N.P.T. and claim was made within a period of seven days and thus, the grounds taken by the Permanent Lok Adalat for denying the claim are not tenable. 3. It is further stated that there was no manhandling, rather, the accident took place where trolly over turned. It cannot be due to manhandling of the goods. The prayer is, accordingly, made to set aside the order passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat and to grant the claim. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents has contested the case. It is submitted that the Permanent Lok Adalat has properly considered the issues raised before it. Finding claim contrary to the terms of the policy, it has been denied. The goods reached P.W.C. on 22.07.2002 and claim was made after expiry of a period of seven days thus it was not tenable. It is submitted that the Permanent Lok Adalat has properly considered the issues raised before it. Finding claim contrary to the terms of the policy, it has been denied. The goods reached P.W.C. on 22.07.2002 and claim was made after expiry of a period of seven days thus it was not tenable. It is also a fact that the loss is due to manhandling of the goods thus taking into consideration all the issues, Permanent Lok Adalat has rightly declined the claim made by the petitioner. 5. I have considered rival submissions of the parties and perused the record. 6. The claim made by the petitioner has been denied mainly on three grounds which are as under : (1) The claim has been made after expiry of a period of seven days i.e. after receipt of the material at P.W.C. on 22.07.2002. (2) The goods were manhandled. (3) The goods reached to the destination i.e. P.W.C., thus subsequent accident would not entitle to claim. 7. I have considered all the three issues and the finding recorded on it is contrary to the record. Learned Permanent Lok Adalat failed to consider the destination for which the goods were booked. It was up to Jawahar Lal Nehru Port Trust and not for Punjab Warehousing Corporation, Navi Mumbai. It is true that the goods received at Punjab State Warehousing Corporation and, thereupon, transported to J.N.P.T. and, in between, accident took place. The destination has wrongly been taken to be P.W.C., rather, it was J.N.P.T. In view of above, the denial of the claim on reaching the goods at P.W.C. cannot be said to be proper. 8. It is also a fact that delivery of the goods at P.W.C. was made on 22.07.2002 and, thereupon, the accident took place. The claim was made within seven days, which has been wrongly counted from the date of delivery at P.W.C. The accident is subsequent to it and does not fall in the definition of "Ration". Thus, both the grounds have not been properly analysed by the Permanent Lok Adalat. 9. It is further denied on the ground of manhandling or mishandling of the goods. It is in reference to the survey report but, therein, the Permanent Lok Adalat ignored as to how the damage was caused. Thus, both the grounds have not been properly analysed by the Permanent Lok Adalat. 9. It is further denied on the ground of manhandling or mishandling of the goods. It is in reference to the survey report but, therein, the Permanent Lok Adalat ignored as to how the damage was caused. It is not due to manhandling or mishandling of the goods but the trolly carrying the goods overturned causing damage to the goods. The denial on the ground of manhandling or mishandling thus cannot be said to be proper. 10. In view of above, all the reasons given by the Permanent Lok Adalat to deny the claim cannot be accepted and, accordingly, the impugned order dated 13.04.2006, passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat is set aside. The case is remanded back to the Permanent Lok Adalat to asses the claim. The parties would appear before it on 04.01.2017. The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid.