JUDGMENT : Dinesh Mehta, J. 1. The present writ petition is directed against the order dated 22.05.2019, passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Dungarpur, whereby petitioner has been directed to close the loan account, issue no objection certificate and refrain from initiating seizure and auction proceedings against the respondent No. 1 - the borrower. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, a finance company, advanced a loan to respondent No. 1 for purchase of a Tractor. The advance was on hire purchase basis and an agreement was executed between the parties, according to which the respondent was required to pay 60 quarterly installments of Rs.31,500/-. 3. It is not in dispute that the respondent-borrower had paid all the installments in conformity with terms of the agreement. 4. The present petitioner however refused to issue 'no objection' certificate to the respondent-borrower, inter alia, on the ground that during the currency of hire purchase agreement, the insurance premium was increased as per the IRDA norms and the vehicle owner was required to pay higher amount than what was prevailing at the time of the agreement. It was the case of the petitioner that insurance was the responsibility/liability of the owner and hence unless the differential amount is paid, the loan amount cannot be treated as duly paid. 5. Learned Permanent Lok Adalat rejected petitioner's stand and held that the petitioner had advanced the loan on hire purchase agreement and in accordance with the terms of the agreement, the respondent had paid the entire amount due. It was also observed that the agreement stipulated a condition that the finance company i.e. petitioner shall make payment of the due amount to insurance company. Learned Permanent Lok Adalat further held that petitioner cannot recover such amount of enhanced premium from the respondent-borrower and directed the Finance Company - petitioner to issue 'no objection certificate' to the borrower (respondent No. 1). 6. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner placed before the Court, respondent's account which shows a sum of Rs.15,563/- is still due in the respondent; which includes the principal amount of overdue installment (Rs.8016/-), insurance charges (Rs.5315/-), Registration/Tpi (Rs.2322/-) and overdue interest (Rs.89.74/-). 7. Such document was not placed before the Permanent Lok Adalat; this Court, therefore, refuses to take into consideration any such document, which has been handed over by the petitioner's counsel over the board. 8. 7. Such document was not placed before the Permanent Lok Adalat; this Court, therefore, refuses to take into consideration any such document, which has been handed over by the petitioner's counsel over the board. 8. This Court does not find any error in the impugned order/award, passed by the learned Permanent Lok Adalat. The Lok Adalat after careful reading of the terms of the agreement, has held that getting the vehicle insured was responsibility of the petitioner finance company. Even learned counsel could not point out any such stipulation in the loan agreement or otherwise that the borrower was liable to recompensate/reimburse the petitioner, in case of enhancement of insurance charges. Petitioner was thus not justified in passing on the burden to the borrower. There is no force in the present writ petition, for which it is dismissed. Stay petition also stands dismissed.