JUDGMENT 1. This intra court appeal is directed against order dated 6.7.17 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby the writ petition preferred by the appellant-Insurance Company against the judgment dated 3.3.17 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Bikaner, directing the appellant-Insurance Company to pay compensation of Rs.43,898/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annuam from the date of filing of insurance claim i.e. 23.2.16 to the second respondent, has been dismissed. 2. The facts relevant are that the second respondent purchased a motor cycle bearing registration No.RJ-07-SB-3283 on 17.12.15 from Karan Automobile, Museum, Bikaner, which was insured with the appellant-Insurance Company. On 6.2.16, when the second respondent was going to his work place, near Durga Mandir, Patel Nagar, Bikaner, the fuel in the motor cycle exhausted. The second respondent parked the vehicle and went to fetch the fuel. When he returned back, the motor cycle was not there, it was stolen. According to the second respondent, he went to the Police Station, Jai Narayan Vyas Colony, Bikaner to lodge the FIR, however, the SHO asked him to first search the vehicle on his own. He also approached the agent of the appellant-Insurance Company, who was having his office in the premises of M/s. Kiran Automobiles, Museum Circle, Bikaner and informed about the factum of theft. Even after search being made, the motor cycle could not be traced out. Thereafter, an FIR was registered by the police on 17.2.16. After FIR being registered, the second respondent informed the appellant-Insurance Company about the incident of theft occurred on 7.2.16. In support of the claim, the second respondent produced affidavits of four persons namely, Sohanram, Likma Devi, Lalchand and Pappu Ram. The claim submitted by the second respondent was repudiated by the appellant-Insurance Company inasmuch as, the second respondent had informed the Insurance Company about the incident of theft after a lapse of 17 days. According to the Insurance Company, as the second respondent was guilty of breach of the condition of policy, the Insurance Company was not liable for the claim. 3. Aggrieved by the rejection of the claim by the appellant-Insurance Company, the second respondent filed an application claiming compensation before Permanent Lok Adalat under Section 22-C of Legal Services Authority Act, 1987. The application was contested by the appellant-Insurance Company by filing a reply thereto. 3. Aggrieved by the rejection of the claim by the appellant-Insurance Company, the second respondent filed an application claiming compensation before Permanent Lok Adalat under Section 22-C of Legal Services Authority Act, 1987. The application was contested by the appellant-Insurance Company by filing a reply thereto. The Permanent Lok Adalat allowed the application preferred by the second respondent and directed the appellant-Insurance Company to pay compensation to the second respondent quantified at Rs.43,898/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of insurance claim i.e. 23.2.16. 4. The legality of the judgment passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat was questioned by the appellant-Insurance Company by way of writ petition before this Court, which stands dismissed by the learned Single Judge by the order impugned. Hence, this appeal. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that under the terms and conditions of the policy, in case of theft or criminal act, which may be subject of a claim under the policy, the insured is under an obligation to give immediate notice to the police and cooperate with the company in securing the conviction of the offender. Since, the second respondent failed to lodge the report with the police with utmost expedition and did not inform the Insurance Company about the occurrence immediately, the claim was rightly repudiated by the appellant-Insurance Company. Learned counsel submitted that the second respondent having breached the condition of the policy, he was not entitled to claim the compensation in terms of the policy and thus, the learned Single Judge has seriously erred in affirming the findings arrived at by Permanent Lok Adalat. Learned counsel submitted that had the second respondent informed the Insurance Company immediately, it would have contacted the police and the effective steps could have been taken to trace the motor cycle and the culprit. 6. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material on record. 7. It is true that in terms of the policy, in case of theft or other criminal act which may be subject of a claim under the policy, the insured is required to inform the police immediately and cooperate with the Insurance Company in securing the conviction of the offender. 7. It is true that in terms of the policy, in case of theft or other criminal act which may be subject of a claim under the policy, the insured is required to inform the police immediately and cooperate with the Insurance Company in securing the conviction of the offender. But then, in the instant case, the fact that the second respondent contacted the police immediately, however, the FIR was not registered by the police asking him to first search the vehicle on its own, is not controverted by the appellant-Insurance Company by filing any counter affidavit. It is matter of record that ultimately, the FIR was registered by the police on 17.2.16. The second respondent informed the appellant-Insurance Company in writing on 23.2.16 and deposited both the keys of the motor cycle with the appellant-Insurance Company. The fact that the second respondent informed the agent of the appellant-Insurance Company immediately is also not controverted by the Insurance Company by filing the affidavit of concerned agent. Moreover, from the condition incorporated in the insurance policy, in no manner it could be inferred that in case of delay in lodging the FIR or informing the Insurance Company about the incident with utmost expedition, the claim of the insured shall be liable to be rejected without further consideration. To the contrary, as per condition no.1 of the policy, when the reasons are furnished by the insured for delay in giving details pertaining to any incident, the insurer may on analysis of the reasons provided by the insured, condone the delay in intimation of claim or delay in providing the required information or documents to the insurer. 8. In this view of the matter, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the finding arrived at by the Permanent Lok Adalat, affirmed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, does not warrant any interference by us in exercise of intra court appeal jurisdiction. 9. In the result, the special appeal fails, it is hereby dismissed.