ORDER 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the award dated 29/6/2022 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Merta, Nagaur (Rajasthan). 2. The proceedings were initiated by the respondent under Section 22B of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 with the submissions that he has a house in Sewago ka Mohalla, Merta City for which he obtained insurance for the period 19/10/2011 to 18/10/2021 and had paid the premium. The house was insured to the extent of Rs.3 Lakh. On 6/8/2019, the house of the respondent got damaged due to land slide and, therefore, lodged the claim, however, the claim was rejected on 24/2/2020. 3. Submissions were made that the Insurance company rejected the claim by indicating that the damage occurred due to settlement in the land for which the Insurance company is not liable, which is a deficiency in service and, therefore, the Insurance company be directed to make payment of the amount of compensation. 4. The Insurance Company filed its reply reiterating the fact that as the loss occurred due to land settlement, which is not covered under the Insurance policy, the applicant is not entitled to any relief and, therefore, the application was rejected. 5. The permanent Lok Adalat after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that the surveyor of the Insurance Company has indicated that the loss occurred due to land settlement. However, as from the material available on record, it was apparent that the loss was not confined to house of the applicant alone but most of the houses in the vicinity (Mohalla) suffered the damage, therefore, it cannot be said that the loss did not occur due to land slide/land settlement and the Insurance Company would not be liable and consequently directed the payment of the amount of loss assessed at Rs.2,42,194/- or the amount of due loan in the applicant, which ever is less in terms of the policy condition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions that the permanent Lok Adalat was not justified in holding the petitioner Insurance Company liable to payment of compensation inasmuch as the Insurance Company had only insured the loss arising out of land slide and as the loss occurred on account of land settlement, therefore, the award impugned deserves to be set aside. 7. 7. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material available on record. 8. The policy in question, which has been produced is a Home Loan Suraksha Bima Policy (Annex.2), which inter alia insures default in repayment of loan due to destruction or damage to the property (so financed) due to any of the perils subject to the terms and conditions, which inter alia indicates fire, lightning, explosion/implosion, Aircraft damage, riot, strike and malicious damage, impact damage and subsidence and landslide including rock slide. 9. The clause ’subsidence and landslide including rock slide’ has been elaborated as loss, destruction or damage directly caused by subsidence of part of the site on which the property stands or land slide/rock slide with certain exclusions. 10. The word ’subsidence’ has been defined in Britannica as ’sinking of the earth’s surface in response to geologic or man-induced causes’ and, therefore, once the policy covers the loss, destruction, damage directly caused by subsidence of part of the site, the fact that the same occurred due to land settlement would be clearly covered under the said Policy condition and the attempt made by the Insurance Company to disown the same cannot be countenanced. The Award passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, therefore, does not call for any interference. 11. A submission was made by the learned counsel for the petitioner with reference to Annex.8 that sum of Rs.1,64,144/-was due in the respondent, therefore, the Insurance Company is liable to make payment to the said extent only. 12. The permanent Lok Adalat has specifically provided that the amount of loss of Rs.2,42,194/- and the amount of loan due, which ever is less would be paid by the Insurance Company, therefore, on that count no further direction need to be issued. 13. In view of the above discussion, there is no substance in the writ petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed.