JUDGMENT : TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA, J. 1. Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Company Limited (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Company') has filed the instant writ petition assailing the award dated 11.09.2018 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Sonepat and whereby an application under Section 22-C of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 moved by respondent No.2 has been dealt with and the petitioner/Company has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,88,672/- along with interest @ 10% per annum w.e.f. 22.10.2016 till actual payment of amount. 2. Counsel submits that respondent No.2 was the owner of car bearing registration No.HR-10-Y-6481 and which was insured with the Company from 15.06.2016 to 14.06.2017. The vehicle was stolen on the intervening night of 21/22.10.2016 and FIR No.0334 of 25.10.2016 under Section 379 IPC had been registered at Police Station Singhawli Ahir, District Bhagpat, U.P. Thereafter, the Company was also informed as regard theft of the car and the claim had been lodged. 3. Counsel contends that the claim of respondent No.2 was repudiated and communication dated 21.06.2017 (Annexure P-4) was sent to respondent No.2. The claim had been repudiated on two counts i.e. non adherence of Condition No.1 and Condition No.4 of the Insurance Policy. 4. Condition No.1 of the Insurance Policy was in the following terms: "Notice shall be given in writing to the company immediately upon the occurrence of any accidental loss or damage in the event of any claim and, thereafter the insured shall give all such information and assistance as the company shall require." 5. Condition No.4 of the Private Car Comprehensive Policy was as follows: "The Company shall not be liable to make any payment in respect of:- the insured shall take all reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle from loss or damages and to maintain it in efficient condition and the Company shall have at all times free and full access to examine the vehicle or any part there of or any driver or employee for the insured. In the event of any accident or breakdown, the vehicle shall not be left unattended without proper precautions being taken to prevent further damage or loss and if the vehicle be driven before the necessary repairs are effected any extension of the damage or any further damage to the vehicle shall be entirely at the insured's own risk." 6. In the event of any accident or breakdown, the vehicle shall not be left unattended without proper precautions being taken to prevent further damage or loss and if the vehicle be driven before the necessary repairs are effected any extension of the damage or any further damage to the vehicle shall be entirely at the insured's own risk." 6. Counsel contends that the vehicle was stolen on 22.10.2016 and in the intimation to the insurer i.e. the petitioner/Company was furnished only on 26.10.2016 i.e. after a delay of 4 days and the FIR had been lodged after a delay of 3 days and such delay is in violation of Condition No.1 of the Insurance Policy reproduced herein above. 7. Further argued that the insurer had left the keys in the vehicle and which had facilitated the theft of the same and as such it is a clear case of negligence on the part of the insurer as necessary and reasonable steps had not been taken to safeguard the vehicle from loss or damage. It is argued that there has been violation of the essential terms and conditions of the Policy and such aspect has been completely overlooked by the Permanent Lok Adalat while passing the impugned award. In support of his contentions, counsel has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court dated 17.08.2010 in Civil Appeal No.6739 of 2010 (arising out of SLP (C) No.12741 of 2010 titled as Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Parvesh Chander Chadha). Reliance has also been placed upon a decision of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Vinod Kumar, (2016) 3 CPR 502. 8. Having heard counsel for the petitioner/Company at length and having perused the pleadings on record, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned award does not suffer from any patent infirmity or illegality. 9. In the impugned award, it has been observed that the Insurance Policy had been sold to respondent No.2 through Maruti Insurance Broking Private Limited at the Maruti dealer's site. The claimant had informed the dealer who had issued the Policy. The dealer in turn and who was arrayed as a party respondent before the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services) Sonepat in its reply had stated that it had immediately furnished information and had forwarded the claim of the claimant to the petitioner/ Company. The claimant had informed the dealer who had issued the Policy. The dealer in turn and who was arrayed as a party respondent before the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services) Sonepat in its reply had stated that it had immediately furnished information and had forwarded the claim of the claimant to the petitioner/ Company. Such factual premise is not even disputed by Mr. Vishal Aggarwal, learned counsel during the course of arguments. Under such circumstances, this Court does not find any delay in the matter so as to be fatal to the claim. The decision of the Apex Court in Parvesh Chander Chadha's case (supra) relied upon by the counsel would have no applicability to the facts of the present case as the theft of the vehicle therein had taken place on 18.01.1995 and the intimation had been given to the Insurance Company concerned only on 22.05.1995. The delay in that matter was substantial. 10. Insofar as the violation of Condition No.4 of the Policy is concerned, the case set up on behalf of the claimant was that the driver of the vehicle had offered lift to two unknown passengers while the driver had parked the car by the side of the road and got down to urinate, the vehicle had been taken away and stolen. In the case of Vinod Kumar (supra), it had been held that if the driver of a vehicle leaves the key in the ignition and also does not lock the door of the vehicle while going to a place from where the vehicle would not be visible to him then such act amounts to failure to safeguard vehicle from loss or damage. However, in the present case, the driver is stated to have parked the car by the side of the road and while the driver was easing himself by the side of the road and when the vehicle was very much within his side, the same had been taken away by the passengers to whom a lift had been offered and thereby stolen. Such peculiar circumstances would not tantamount to be a failure to safeguard vehicle from loss. 11. In view of the discussion above, no intervention in the matter is called for. 12. The impugned award dated 11.09.2018 (Annexure P-17) passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Sonepat is affirmed. 13. Petition is dismissed.