JUDGMENT Sandeep Mehta, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the material available on record. 2. By way of this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners herein have approached this Court for assailing the judgment-cum-award dated 16.07.2018 passed by the learned Permanent Lok Adalat, Jodhpur in Case No.178/2017 whereby, the application filed by the respondent No.2 Shri Anil Bhansali (hereinafter referred to as 'the applicant') under Section 22B of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 was accepted and the petitioner Insurance Company was directed to honour the insurance claim of the respondent applicant to the tune of Rs. 12,74,943/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of submission of application i.e. 26.09.2017 to the date of payment; parking charges at 2% of the total estimate cost and litigation cost of Rs. 10,000/- owing to loss suffered to his insured car in a vehicular accident. 3. Facts in brief are that the respondent purchased a Honda City Car in the year 2005 and got allocated registration No.RJ-19-CA-0001 from the Transport Department. He thereafter, sold the said Honda City car and purchased a new Skoda Octavia Elegance model car for which, he retained the registration number RJ-19-CA-0001 by fling requisite application before the DTO, Jodhpur and by paying the applicable fees. The applicant took a package insurance policy of the petitioner insurance company while purchasing the new car from the authorised dealer named M/s. Jai Car's Pvt. Limited for consideration of Rs. 19,88,222/-. The policy was valid for a period between 09.05.2014 to 08.05.2015. The insurance policy was renewed by the petitioner insurance company for the years 2015-16 and 2016-17 by charging the requisite premium. Lastly, premium to the tune of Rs. 24,355/- was paid by the applicant to the Insurance Company on 08.05.2017 and a cover note dated 09.05.2017 to 08.05.2018 was issued covering the full risk for car to the tune of Rs. 13,76,943/-. It is alleged that while applicant's son was travelling in the insured car from Jodhpur to Pali on 14.07.2017, suddenly a stray animal came across the road and while trying to save it, the car collided with the divider and was damaged completely. The dealer as well as the petitioner Insurance Company were informed. The car was brought to Jodhpur by a crane. The dealer prepared an estimate of Rs. The dealer as well as the petitioner Insurance Company were informed. The car was brought to Jodhpur by a crane. The dealer prepared an estimate of Rs. 24,49,789/- for repairing the car. The insurance surveyor gave a report that the accidented vehicle was covered by the 'total loss category'. Thereupon, the respondent applicant, purchased a new Jeep Compass car for a sum of Rs. 17,29,000/- and got the same insured through Oriental Insurance Company for the period 16.08.2017 to 15.08.2018. However, desiring to retain the old registration number, which was acquired on premium the applicant filed the requisite application to the DTO, Jodhpur and retained the number of the old car whereas registration No. RJ-19-CG-9138 allotted for the new jeep car was transferred on to the accidented vehicle. The applicant, filed a claim with the insurance company towards the insured Skoda Octavia vehicle which had been totally damaged in the accident but the Insurance Company did not take appropriate steps in this regard whereupon, he filed the aforesaid application under Section 22B of the Legal Services Authority Act which came to be allowed in the above terms by the PLA, Jodhpur by judgment-cum-award dated 16.07.2018 which is assailed by the petitioner insurance company through this writ petition. 4. Shri Manoj Bhandari, learned counsel for the petitioner advanced a solitary argument to challenge the impugned judgment. He urged that the respondent applicant got the registration number of the accidented vehicle changed from No.RJ-19-CA-0001 to RJ-19-CG-9138 and thus, scrap which would possibly have fetched much greater value on sale with the premium registration number was significantly devalued and accordingly, the insurance company was perfectly justified in not honouring the claim of the applicant in the entirety. He thus implored the Court to exercise its supervisory writ jurisdiction and quash the impugned order as being absolutely illegal and perverse. 5. Shri Anil Bhandari, learned counsel representing the respondent applicant in caveat, vehemently and fervently opposed the arguments advanced by the petitioner's counsel. He contended that the vehicle was under full risk cover of the package insurance policy issued by the petitioner Insurance Company. 5. Shri Anil Bhandari, learned counsel representing the respondent applicant in caveat, vehemently and fervently opposed the arguments advanced by the petitioner's counsel. He contended that the vehicle was under full risk cover of the package insurance policy issued by the petitioner Insurance Company. The right to retain the old registration number has been conferred under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and thus, merely because the applicant got the said registration number exchanged inter-se between the accidented vehicle and the new vehicle purchased and saved the premium number for himself, the insurance claim could not have been disallowed. He submits that the package insurance policy does not stipulate anywhere that the risk coverage would be dependent on the registration number of the insured vehicle. The chassis number and the engine number of the vehicle are mentioned in the insurance policy and the insurance company has contracted to indemnify the insured for loss to life as well as goods vehicle under the package policy. As the law permits a car owner to retain the old registration number for a new vehicle, no right can be claimed by the insurance company on the premium registration number which the applicant had acquired at a significant cost and retained the same after paying the requisite fees to the Transport Department. He contends that the Insurance Company does not insure the vehicle on the basis of its registration number and rather, the premium is based on the valuation of the vehicle which, by no stretch of imagination, can be assessed in reference to its registration number. He urges that all these issues were elaborately considered by the PLA while allowing the application filed by the respondent applicant and that the impugned judgment does not suffer from any illegality, irregularity or infirmity whatsoever warranting interference therein while exercising this Court's supervisory writ petition. On these grounds, Shri Anil Bhandari craved dismissal of the writ petition. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material available on record. 6. On these grounds, Shri Anil Bhandari craved dismissal of the writ petition. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material available on record. 6. On a perusal of the impugned judgment of the learned PLA, it is apparent that though in the reply, the Insurance Company disputed the applicant's claim by contesting that the contract between the company and the applicant was for the vehicle registered as RJ-19-CA-0001 and thus, could not be honoured for the changed registration number, but while filing the affidavit and the written arguments, it was candidly conceded by the insurance company that it was ready to honour the insurance claim after deducting the salvage value to the tune of Rs. 10,00,000/- and a sum of Rs. 2,000/- towards the excess clause and was agreeable to pay a sum of Rs. 3,74,943/- to the insured. Manifestly thus, the Insurance Company did not question the right of the insured to be indemnified for the claim filed by him. It is also not in dispute that the insured vehicle was written off as 'total loss' as per surveyor's report. The only objection which has been raised by Shri Manoj Bhandari, learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of arguments is that the contract was for the vehicle registered as RJ-19-CA-0001 and thus, the claim was not fit to be honoured for the altered registration number and that the salvage with the premium number would have fetched better value. The said plea advanced by Shri Manoj Bhandari learned counsel representing the petitioner to assail the impugned award of the PLA is untenable on the face of it. Firstly, as has been noted above, the Insurance Company itself filed written submissions and affidavit before the PLA agreeing that it is ready to honour the claim of the applicant after turning it down to a certain extent. The plea advanced by the petitioner's counsel that the salvage/scrap of the vehicle would be devalued because of change of the registration number is absolutely conjectural and nothing but a figment of imagination. Suffice it to say that while charging premium for insuring a vehicle under package policy, the physical value of vehicle is assessed and the registration number of the vehicle has no role to play therein. Suffice it to say that while charging premium for insuring a vehicle under package policy, the physical value of vehicle is assessed and the registration number of the vehicle has no role to play therein. The insurance premium is calculated as per the model, number, invoice, etc. of the vehicle when it is new and keeps on reducing each year thereafter. Thus, the registration number has no role to play in calculating the premium chargeable for insuring a vehicle nor does the package insurance policy cover the registration number. It is also indisputable that vehicles change hands during currency of an insurance policy and the indemnity is extended to the transferee. The indemnity which is provided under the insurance cover is only for the material value of the insured vehicle. The Motor Vehicles Act permits the car owner to retain the registration number with himself and transfer the same to a subsequently purchased vehicle. Admittedly, the applicant acted in this fashion and retained the premium registration number which he was having on the accidented vehicle and the vehicle owned by him before that and thereafter also. 7. Viewed in light of these facts, manifestly, the Insurance Company was totally unjustified in opposing the claim application filed by the insured applicant Shri Anil Bhansali for the damages suffered by accident of the insured vehicle. The impugned judgment-cum-award dated 16.07.2018 passed by the learned Permanent Lok Adalat, Jodhpur does not suffer from any illegality, irregularity or perversity whatsoever warranting interference therein in exercise of supervisory writ jurisdiction of this Court. 8. Thus, the writ petition as well as stay application are dismissed as being devoid of merit. No order as to costs.