JUDGMENT Mr. Vinod S. Bhardwaj, J.(Oral) Challenge in the present writ petition is to the award dated 19.09.2022 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Faridabad, whereby petition No.2182 of 2017, filed by the petitioner under Section 22-C of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, seeking payment of loss on account of theft of the vehicle, has been dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner-company is owner of vehicle bearing registration No HR-38-S-4144 which was stolen by some unknown persons on the intervening night of 29/30.12.2014 when the said vehicle was parked in front of the house of the friend of the driver Ram Avadh. The theft was detected in the morning of 30.12.2014 and the matter was promptly reported to the police. The information was also sent by the petitioner on the toll free number issued by the insurance company and was also given to the Police Station but the police did not take any action in the matter and asked the driver to carry out the search of the vehicle on his own level whereupon the owner and driver of the vehicle searched the vehicle in the States of Rajasthan Delhi and Uttar Pradesh but the same was not traceable. The FIR bearing No.567 of 31.12.2014 was thereafter registered by the police under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, at Police Station Saran, District Faridabad. The claim submitted by the petitioner against the vehicle was even though registered by the registered respondent insurance company, however, the same was not processed on account of deficiency of certain documents. The police submitted its final un-traced report on 28.05.2015 Despite all the said documents necessary for approving the claim having been submitted, however, no decision was taken thereupon and the claim was repudiated solely on the ground that the claim could not be honoured on account of non-compliance of formalities and submission of relevant documents. Consequently, an application was filed by the petitioner before the permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Faridabad. 3. Notice was issued to the entered appearance and filed its response raising various objections including reiterating its objections that relevant documents were not furnished by the petitioner due to which the case could not be processed the same was hence rightly closed as 'no claim.' 4. 3. Notice was issued to the entered appearance and filed its response raising various objections including reiterating its objections that relevant documents were not furnished by the petitioner due to which the case could not be processed the same was hence rightly closed as 'no claim.' 4. Efforts for an amicable resolution of the dispute under Section 22-C (4) to (7) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 were undertaken by the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services),Faridabad and on failure of the reconciliation, adjudication under section 22C (8) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 was initiated by Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Faridabad. 5. Parties led their respective evidence and upon consideration of the rival submissions and evidence brought on record by the learned counsel for the parties,the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Faridabad, dismissed the application filed by the petitioner on the ground that there was violation of the terms and conditions of the policy and that intimation was not timely submitted by the petitioner with the Insurance Company due to which there was delay in consideration of the issues and on the part of claimant in taking appropriate steps for mitigating the loss. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent insurance company relies upon the award passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Faridabad, to justify its stand. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and have also gone through the present petition with their able assistance. 8. It is evident from a perusal of the award passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Faridabad that the same has been passed dismissing the application under Section 22-C of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, submitted by the petitioner on the ground that the vehicle in question was parked unattended and at an unauthorized place wherefrom it was stolen. It was further observed that the appropriate care and caution had not been exercised and the vehicle had been left unattended inviting the culprits to steal the vehicle. It was also held that there was a violation of the terms of the insurance policy and that the insurance company cannot be held at fault. 9. It was further observed that the appropriate care and caution had not been exercised and the vehicle had been left unattended inviting the culprits to steal the vehicle. It was also held that there was a violation of the terms of the insurance policy and that the insurance company cannot be held at fault. 9. I find that the reasoning adopted by the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Faridabad is flawed, inter alia, for the following reasons:- (i) the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), failed to take into consideration that the claim of the petitioner was never considered by the insurance company on merits and that no such reasons have been assigned by the Insurance Company for repudiation of the claim of the petitioner; (ii) the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services),Faridabad, cannot supplant its reasons for the reasons that weighed with the respondent insurance company. The Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Faridabad, is required to examine the validity objectivity and rationality of the reasons for repudiation. Since the claim had actually not been considered by the respondent insurance company on merits and there had been no repudiation of the claim on merits, hence, the findings recorded by the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Faridabad are per se not on the basis of any factors that actually weighed upon the respondent insurance company at the time of taking its decision; (iii) it is also evident that the claim of the petitioner had been declined by the respondent insurance company on account of requisite documents having not been furnished and the same was closed as not claim'. The crucial aspect which was required to be considered was as to whether the petitioner claimant is in a situation to furnish the documents as were necessary for processing/considering the claim of the petitioner. The Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Faridabad, seemingly lost sight of the object of Insurance in a bid to adjudicate the lis and entered into an area of returning the findings on merits by recording reasons supplanting the reasons assigned by the respondent insurance company; in (iv) The Insurance Laws are benevolent piece of legislation and the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), have been constituted to provide expeditious, efficient and effective grievance redressal mechanism to the aggrieved. Where the lapse is merely a procedural lapse of the claimant, the right ought not to be denied and opportunity is required to be extended to the consumer/insured to establish its claim and seek determination thereof on merits. 10. Taking inconsideration the facts noticed above, I am of the opinion that the award passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Faridabad, suffers from an illegality in substituting the reasons and declining the claim of the petitioner on merits even though there was no repudiation of the claim on merits by the respondent insurance company. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner shall furnish the requisite documents as were asked for by the respondent insurance company and as are deemed necessary for consideration of his claim and that the respondent insurance company should take a decision on the merits of the claim. 12. The above said prayer appears to be just and I find no reasons as to why the insurance company should not consider the claim after assessing the documents furnished and carry out its own survey/investigation into the claim made by the petitioner. 13. The present writ petition is accordingly allowed. The award dated 19.09.2022 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Faridabad, is set aside. The respondent insurance company is directed to pass an award on merits against the claim lodged by the petitioner, in the event of the petitioner furnishing the requisite documents as sought for from the petitioner by the respondent insurance company within a period of 04 weeks of the receipt of certified copy of this order. The respondent insurance company shall pass the order on the said claim within a further period of 03 months thereafter and on granting an opportunity of hearing, if so required.