JUDGMENT : PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, J. 1. This writ petition has been preferred claiming the following reliefs: “It is therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed and by way of an appropriate writ, order or direction the impugned judgment and award dated 28.11.2022 (Ann.13) passed by the learned Permanent Lok Adalat in PLA Case No. 178/2021 may kindly be quashed and set aside and the petition filed by the respondent-application u/s 22 C of the Act may kindly be dismissed. Any other order which may be considered just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner company. The cost be also awarded in favour of the petitioner company.” 2. As per the pleaded facts, the petitioner-Company issued a Commercial Vehicle Package Policy to the respondent/applicant in respect of goods carrying commercial vehicle bearing registration no. RJ-07-GC-7148. The said policy was to remain effective for the period from 06.03.2020 to 05.03.2021, and the total sum insured under the policy was Rs. 24,00,000/-. The respondent-applicant was to be indemnified in respect of any damage to the insured vehicle during the continuance of the said insurance policy. 2.1. On 07.06.2020, the petitioner-Company was informed by the respondent-applicant that when the vehicle was at the outer ring road of Shahdara-Delhi road, it caught fire on account of short circuit, as a result whereof its front portion was badly damaged. Upon receiving such information, the petitioner-Company immediately appointed Authorized Surveyor and Assessor M/s. Innovative Insurance Surveyors and Loss Assessors Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred as the “Spot Surveyor”) for the spot survey. 2.1.1. Immediately thereafter, the Spot Surveyor reached the place of the incident, inspected the site as well as the insured vehicle, and submitted spot inspection report dated 09.06.2020 before the petitioner-Company. It was observed therein that the vehicle was fully loaded with bags of powder around 1 feet above the height of the body of the vehicle. 2.2. Subsequently, another Authorized Surveyor and Loss Assessor Sh. Rakesh Soni (hereinafter referred as the “Final Surveyor”) was appointed for the final survey. The Final Survey Report, after the usual procedure, was submitted on 15.10.2020, whereby a total loss of Rs. 10,67,658/- was assessed, subject to coverage under the policy. 2.2. Subsequently, another Authorized Surveyor and Loss Assessor Sh. Rakesh Soni (hereinafter referred as the “Final Surveyor”) was appointed for the final survey. The Final Survey Report, after the usual procedure, was submitted on 15.10.2020, whereby a total loss of Rs. 10,67,658/- was assessed, subject to coverage under the policy. In the said report, it was pointed out that the insured did not provide dharamkanta (weighment) receipt, so as to enable due verification about the load being carried in the vehicle at the relevant time. Other discrepancies were also pointed out in regard to the genuineness of the G.R. No. 1042 dated 06.06.2020 and the invoice no. 23 of M/s Devashish Clay Industries. 2.3. Since before final settlement of the claim, the aforementioned issues needed to be thoroughly investigated, therefore, the petitioner-Company appointed Sh. Rajesh Yadav as Investigator (hereinafter referred as “Investigator”) to investigate into the genuineness of the aforesaid G.R. and the invoice. The investigator accordingly, submitted his report dated 09.11.2020, pointing out that the invoice and G.R. were fake and fabricated. 2.4. Thereafter, the petitioner-Company issued registered notices dated 22.12.2020 and 04.01.2021 to the respondent/applicant, calling upon him to submit his explanation on the issue of fabricated documents; in response whereof, the respondent/applicant, through his Advocate, sent a legal notice to the petitioner-Company on 01.03.2021.The respondent/applicant’s claim was repudiated by the petitioner-Company, and the reasons, in brief, for the same, were communicated vide letter dated 09.03.2021. 2.5. Aggrieved by the repudiation of claim, the respondent/applicant filed an application under Section 22-C of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 before the learned Permanent Lok Adalat, Bikaner; reply whereto was filed by the petitioner-Company, denying its liability to pay any compensation under the policy. The learned Permanent Lok Adalat however, vide the impugned award dated 28.11.2022, allowed the said application, while directing the petitioner-Company to pay, to the respondent/applicant, a sum of Rs. 17,70,441/- towards the damages caused to vehicle along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the applicant till the date of payment; in addition, a direction was given for payment of a sum of Rs. 20,000/- towards mental agony and Rs. 10,000/- towards cost of litigation. 2.6. Hence, the petitioner-Company has preferred this petition against the aforesaid award dated 28.11.2022, claiming the aforequoted reliefs. 3. 20,000/- towards mental agony and Rs. 10,000/- towards cost of litigation. 2.6. Hence, the petitioner-Company has preferred this petition against the aforesaid award dated 28.11.2022, claiming the aforequoted reliefs. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner-Company submitted that as per the report of the Investigator, the Invoice and G.R. were found to be false and fabricated; he also found that the vehicle was carrying the goods much beyond the prescribed loading capacity of 24,000 kgs; therefore, it was clearly showing the contravention of the terms of the insurance policy. He further submitted that the Final Survey Report reveals that a total loss of Rs. 10,67,658/- was assessed, subject to compliance of the policy conditions, and that, despite several requests, the insured did not provide dharamkanta (Weighment) to the Final Surveyor. Therefore, as per learned counsel, the respondent/applicant never furnished a proper explanation regarding the genuineness of the invoice and the G.R. 3.1. Learned counsel further submitted that the insured vehicle was overloaded by the clay powder bags one feet above the height of the body of the vehicle in question, and therefore the overloading of the vehicle clearly amounted to violation of the policy conditions; however, the learned Permanent Lok Adalat, without considering, amongst others, the said vital aspect, passed the impugned award. 3.2. Learned counsel also argued that the very foundation of the claim made by respondent/applicant is based on fabrication, and it is a settled principle of law that fraud vitiates everything. 3.3. In support of his submissions, learned counsel relied upon the following judgments: (a) M/s Munjal Showa Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs, Civil Appeal No. 2576/2010, decided on 23.09.2022 (b) Manmohan Nanda vs. United India Assurance Company Ltd. (2022) 4 SCC 582 (c) United India Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Rajendra Singh, Civil Appeal Nos. 2087 with 2088 of 2000 decided on 14.03.2000 (d) Shivram Chandra Jagarnath Cold Storage and Another vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. and Others, (2022) 4 SCC 539 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent/applicant, while vehemently opposing the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioner-Company, submitted that the insurance policy is always subject to the Law of Contracts and the IRDAI Laws and Regulations, which are further subject to the market conditions. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent/applicant, while vehemently opposing the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioner-Company, submitted that the insurance policy is always subject to the Law of Contracts and the IRDAI Laws and Regulations, which are further subject to the market conditions. It was further submitted that the terms and conditions of the policy are subject to the test of reasonableness and various other factors and thus, repudiation of claim in question, made on the basis of unrelated aspects, such as load of vehicle, as in the present case, is wholly unjustified and contrary to law. 4.1. It was also submitted that the Spot Surveyor, the Survey Report, has concluded that the loss occurred due to the short circuiting in the wire of the insured vehicle. It was further submitted that Spot Surveyor plays an important role in the matters relating to the loss caused to the insured transport vehicle, as it is expected of him to ascertain the circumstances in which the loss had occurred, and thus in present case, it was the best available evidence to ascertain the loss so occurred. 4.2. Learned counsel asserted that the appointment of the Investigator was in contravention of Section 64-UM Insurance Act of 1938, and also violative of the IRDAI Laws and Regulations. He also submitted that the Investigator prepared an unauthorized and in appropriate report, and thus, the work which was expected to be done by a licensed investigator was being delegated to an unlicensed and unprofessional individual who was not only incompetent but also working on the directions of the petitioner-Company. 4.3. It was further submitted that the respondent/applicant had produced genuine bills, regarding payment of damages, issued by M.K. Automobiles (Tata Motors Authorized Service Station), Bikaner and Mahadev Motor Body Works, Hiyadesar Road Nokha Bikaner whereby the total amount came to Rs. 18,56,045/- towards works and repairs. 4.4. To fortify his submissions, learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Pradeep Kumar, (2009) 7 SCC 787 , relevant portion whereof, as referred by learned counsel, reads as under: “22. In other words although the assessment of loss by the approved surveyor is a prerequisite for payment or settlement of claim of twenty thousand rupees or more by insurer, but surveyor's report is not the last and final word. In other words although the assessment of loss by the approved surveyor is a prerequisite for payment or settlement of claim of twenty thousand rupees or more by insurer, but surveyor's report is not the last and final word. It is not that sacrosanct that it cannot be departed from; it is not conclusive. The approved surveyor's report may be the basis or foundation for settlement of a claim by the insurer in respect of the loss suffered by the insured but surely such report is neither binding upon the insurer nor insured. 23. So far as the case in hand is concerned, the claim of the complainant has been accepted by the consumer fora as it was duly supported by original vouchers, bills and receipts. It has been held that the actual expenses incurred by the complainant comes to Rs. 1,39,438 in getting the truck repaired apart from the expenses on account of haulage of truck and carrying it to the workshop. Taking into account actual expenses incurred and the interest that the complainant had to pay to the bank from which the loan was obtained for that amount, the District Forum awarded a sum of Rs. 1,58,409 to the complainant and the Insurance Company was directed to make that payment along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. At the first blush, we had some doubt whether the interest paid by the complainant to the bank could have been awarded, but on deeper scrutiny we found that no such ground has been set up in the appeal. As a matter of fact, this aspect was not even raised before the National Commission.” 4.5. Learned counsel further placed reliance on the following judgments: (a) Khatema Fibres Ltd. vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. and Another, 2021 SCC Online SC 818 (b) Lakhmi Chand vs. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. (2016) 3 SCC 100 (c) B.V. Nagaraju vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. (1996) 4 SCC 647 (d) Manjeet Singh vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. (2018) 2 SCC 108 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case and the judgments cited at the Bar. 6. This Court observes that the respondent/applicant’s vehicle in question was insured under the Commercial Vehicle Package Policy in respect of goods carrying commercial vehicle. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case and the judgments cited at the Bar. 6. This Court observes that the respondent/applicant’s vehicle in question was insured under the Commercial Vehicle Package Policy in respect of goods carrying commercial vehicle. The policy was effective for the period from 06.03.2020 to 05.03.2021 and the total sum insured under the policy was Rs. 24,00,000/-. The insured vehicle sustained damages on 07.06.2020 on account of catching fire due to short circuit, resulting into severe damage to its front portion. The respondent/applicant raised the claim before the petitioner-Company, as per the insurance policy, but the same was denied by the petitioner-Company on account of violation of terms and conditions of the policy. 7. This Court further observes that the submission of the petitioner-Company regarding overloading of the truck holds no substance, as the insurance policy was taken for the vehicle and not for the goods loaded in the vehicle. Further, it is clear from the report of the Spot Surveyor that the damage caused to the vehicle was not on account of overloading of goods but on account of the short circuit resulting in the damage to the vehicle. 8. This Court also observes that the learned Permanent Lok Adalat in the impugned award dated 28.11.2022 held that the petitioner-Company had repudiated the claim only on the basis that the G.R. was not furnished for verification and that the documents produced were fabricated. This Court is of the opinion that the contention of fabrication of documents (Invoice no. 23) is not related to the damage caused to the vehicle and the insurance claim. 9. This Court further observes that the Final Survey Report had assessed the loss to be around Rs. 10,67,658/- however, the respondent/applicant produced the original bills, for repairs, issued by M.K. Automobiles (Tata Motors Authorized Service Station), Bikaner and Mahadev Motor Body Works, Hiyadesar Road Nokha Bikaner wherein the total amount came to Rs. 18,56,045/-. 10. In furtherance, this Court observes that the judgments cited on behalf of the petitioner-Company do not render any assistance to its case. 11. In light of the aforesaid observations and looking into the factual matrix of the present case, this Court does not find it a fit case so as to grant any relief to the petitioner-Company in the present petition. 12. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. 11. In light of the aforesaid observations and looking into the factual matrix of the present case, this Court does not find it a fit case so as to grant any relief to the petitioner-Company in the present petition. 12. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of.