ORDER : 1. These petitions were listed in the daily cause list on 27.03.2025 in the category of ‘For Admission – Fresh with Stay’ and after hearing both the parties, the matter was partly allowed. However, upon going through the judgment which was cited at Bar by learned counsel representing the petitioner, it came to the notice of the Court that the facts of the cited judgment are entirely different and does not align with the present case and thus, the matter is listed today in the ‘To be mentioned’ category. 2. These petitions have been filed by the respective petitioners under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the impugned judgment and award dated 14.08.2024 passed by the learned Permanent Lok Adalat (for brevity ‘PLA’) in Public Utility Services Case No.15/2021. The prayer made in both the instant petitions reads as under: [SBCWP No.2855/2025]:- “It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this petition for writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be allowed in toto and the following reliefs may kindly be granted in favor of the petitioner and the writ petition preferred by the petitioner may kindly be allowed the judgment and award dated 14.08.2022 [sic] passed by Permanent Lok Adalat may kindly be modified as per raised in the instant petition. Any other appropriate order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper, may kindly be passed in favor of the petitioner.” [SBCWP No.649/2025]:- “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 14.08.2024 (Annexure-5) passed by the learned Permanent Lok Adalat, Jodhpur Metro in Case No. 15/2021 may kindly be quashed and set aside. Any other relief 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.” 3. Since, both the writ petitions arise out of the similar controversy, therefore, the same are being decided together by this common order. For the sake of convenience, facts of SBCWP No.2855/2025 are being taken illustratively. 4. Succinctly stated facts of the case are that the petitioner- shop was insured with the respondents under ‘Shopkeepers Insurance Policy’ from 24.08.2017 to 23.08.2018. Since, both the writ petitions arise out of the similar controversy, therefore, the same are being decided together by this common order. For the sake of convenience, facts of SBCWP No.2855/2025 are being taken illustratively. 4. Succinctly stated facts of the case are that the petitioner- shop was insured with the respondents under ‘Shopkeepers Insurance Policy’ from 24.08.2017 to 23.08.2018. On 22.05.2018, the petitioner-shop collapsed due to excavation work being carried out in the adjoining plot by a third party. Thereafter, a claim was made before the respondents under the Shopkeepers Insurance Policy for the loss suffered by the petitioner-shop, which came to be repudiated by the respondents vide communication dated 28.03.2019 on the ground that no perils covered under the insurance policy have operated in the cause of loss. Aggrieved of the same, the petitioner-shop (through its proprietor) filed an application (Annex.1) under Section 22C of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 before the learned PLA. The respondents filed their reply (Annex.2) to the application (Annex.1) denying averments made therein. The learned PLA vide judgment and award dated 14.08.2024 (hereinafter as ‘impugned award’) partly allowed the claim of the petitioner-shop and awarded Rs.15,30,152/- along with interest on the said amount @ 8% from the date of filing the application till the date of passing of the impugned award (Annex.3) amounting to Rs.4,38,663/- and also awarded cost of litigation to the tune of Rs.5,000/-. A direction was also given to the effect that in case of non-compliance of the impugned award within two months from the date of decision, the said amount shall carry interest @8% per annum from the date of passing of the impugned award till the date of actual payment. Aggrieved of the same, the petitioner-shop (through its proprietor) has filed the writ petition-S.B.C.W.P. No.2855/2025 seeking enhancement of the amount awarded by the learned PLA and the respondents have filed- S.B.C.W.P. No.649/2025 for quashing and setting aside of the impugned award (Annex.3). 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner-shop submits that under the Shopkeepers Insurance Policy, there is no provision for depreciation and deduction of old stocks, hence, the learned PLA has erred in making deduction of Rs.1,97,956/- towards depreciation and of Rs.48,623/- towards old stocks. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner-shop submits that under the Shopkeepers Insurance Policy, there is no provision for depreciation and deduction of old stocks, hence, the learned PLA has erred in making deduction of Rs.1,97,956/- towards depreciation and of Rs.48,623/- towards old stocks. He also submits, while placing reliance upon Regulation 9 of the IRDA (Protection of Policy Holders Interest), Regulation, 2002, that as the respondents failed to settle the claim within 30 days from the date of receipt of the surveyor’s report i.e., 24.09.2018, hence the petitioner-shop was entitled to payment of interest at the rate of 2% above the bank rate from the date of receipt of the surveyor’s report. He placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this court in United India Insurance Company Ltd. and Ors. vs. M/s Lariya Art Palace Private Ltd. [D.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1932/2024 decided on 05.12.2024] 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the terms of the policy in question do not cover the peril which operated in the cause of loss, therefore, the learned PLA has erred in allowing the claim of the petitioner shop while erroneously placing reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sangrur Sales Corporation vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. and Anr., (2020) 16 SCC 292 , as the policy in question in that case i.e., “Standard Fire and Special Perils Insurance Policy” was entirely different from the policy in question in the present case i.e., “Shopkeepers Insurance Policy”. He also submits that the learned PLA has rightly made deduction towards depreciation and old stocks hence, no interference is required by this court. He also submits that old stock was perishable in nature and deduction for the same has been provided under the Guidelines for Claim Settlement. He also submits that the interest @ 2% above the prevailing bank rate is payable only in cases where claim is not settled or rejected within the stipulated time period, however, in the present case, after the receipt of the surveyor’s report on 24.09.2018, certain clarifications were sought, and the last clarification was received vide communication dated 12.02.2019, and after examining the same the claim was rejected on 28.03.2019, hence there was no delay in rejection of the claim and therefore, the interest @ 2% above the prevailing bank rate is not payable. He also submits that the learned PLA has erred in giving direction for payment of interest @ 8% on the total awarded sum in case the payment is not made within a period of 2 months from the date of the award as the same would amount to interest on interest. 7. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the petitioner-shop submits that clause (e) of Section-I of the insurance policy covers loss caused by Subsidence and Landslide (including Rock Slide) damage and clause (g) of Section-I of the policy covers loss caused by impact damage, hence, the cause of loss in the present case, which was due to excavation work being carried out by a third party in the adjoining plot, was covered under clauses (e) and (g) of Section-I of the insurance policy. He thus, submits that the present case is covered by the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sangrur Sales Corporation (Supra) as well as in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pushpalaya Printers, (2004) 3 SCC 694 . 8. Heard the learned counsel representing the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. This court deems it appropriate to first deal with the contentions raised by the respondents regarding the non-coverage of the peril which operated in cause of loss in the present case and also regarding the misplaced reliance by the learned PLA on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sangrur Sales Corporation (Supra) . The relevant part of the insurance policy in question is reproduced as under: “SECTION 1 - BUILDING/CONTENTS (Excluding Money and Valuables) The Company will indemnify the Insured in respect of loss of or damage to the Building/Contents, whilst contained in the insured premises by: (a) Fire Lightning Explosion of gas in domestic appliances (b) Bursting and overflowing of water tanks, apparatus or pipes (c) Aircraft or articles dropped therefrom (d) Riot, Strike or Malicious Act (e) Earthquake, Fire and/or Shock, Subsidence and Landslide (including Rockslide) damage (f) Flood, Inundation, Storm, Tempest, Typhoon, Hurricane, Tornado or Cyclone (g) Impact damage SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS The Company shall not be liable in respect of (i) loss or damage to livestock, motor vehicles, and pedal cycles (ii) loss of or damage to money, securities for money, stamps, bullion, deeds, bonds, bills of exchange, promissory notes. Stock and share certificates, business booked, manuscripts, documents of any kind, unset precious stones and jewelry and valuables.(iii) the first Rs. 2,500/- or 21/2% of the sum insured, whichever is less of each and every loss arising under section (1) (f) hereof. SPECIAL CONDITION OF AVERAGE xxx 9.1. Thus, it is clear that clause (e) of Section I of the insurance policy covers the loss of or damage to the Building/Contents by Earthquake, Fire and/or Shock, Subsidence and Landslide (including Rockslide) damage. In the present case, admittedly, the shop in question collapsed due to the excavation work being carried out on an adjoining plot by a third party resulting in subsidence/impact damage. Thus, the cause of loss was subsidence, which is evidently an insured perils under Clause (e) of Section I of the insurance policy, hence, was covered under the insurance policy. Therefore, the contentions of the counsel for the respondents regarding the non-coverage of the peril which operated in cause of loss as well as regarding the misplaced reliance by the learned PLA on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sangrur Sales Corporation (Supra) are not sustainable. 10. So far as the contention of the counsel for the petitioner- shop regarding the erroneous deductions made by the learned PLA towards depreciation and old stocks is concerned the same is not without substance for the reason that no such deductions are stipulated under the insurance policy in question, therefore, in absence of any stipulations in this regard, the learned PLA has erred in making deduction of Rs.1,97,956/- towards depreciation and of Rs.48,623/- towards old stocks. 11. As far as the contention regarding payment of interest is concerned, this court deems it appropriate to refer to Regulation 9 of the IRDA (Protection of Policy Holders Interest), Regulation, 2002, and the same is reproduced as under: “ 9. Claim procedure in respect of a general insurance policy (1) An insured or the claimant shall give notice to the insurer of any loss arising under contract of insurance at the earliest or within such extended time as may be allowed by the insurer. On receipt of such a communication, a general insurer shall respond immediately and give clear indication to the insured on the procedures that he should follow. On receipt of such a communication, a general insurer shall respond immediately and give clear indication to the insured on the procedures that he should follow. In cases where a surveyor has to be appointed for assessing a loss/ claim, it shall be so done within 72 hours of the receipt of intimation from the insured. (2) Where the insured is unable to furnish all the particulars required by the surveyor or where the surveyor does not receive the full cooperation of the insured, the insurer or the surveyor as the case may be, shall inform in writing the insured about the delay that may result in the assessment of the claim. The surveyor shall be subjected to the code of conduct laid down by the Authority while assessing the loss, and shall communicate his findings to the insurer within 30 days of his appointment with a copy of the report being furnished to the insured, if he so desires. Where, in special circumstances of the case, either due to its special and complicated nature, the surveyor shall under intimation to the insured, seek an extension from the insurer for submission of his report. In no case shall a surveyor take more than six months from the date of his appointment to furnish his report. (3) If an insurer, on the receipt of a survey report, finds that it is incomplete in any respect, he shall require the surveyor under intimation to the insured, to furnish an additional report on certain specific issues as may be required by the insurer. Such a request may be made by the insurer within 15 days of the receipt of the original survey report. Provided that the facility of calling for an additional report by the insurer shall not be resorted to more than once in the case of a claim. (4) The surveyor on receipt of this communication shall furnish an additional report within three weeks of the date of receipt of communication from the insurer. (5) On receipt of the survey report or the additional survey report, as the case may be, an insurer shall within a period of 30 days offer a settlement of the claim to the insured. (5) On receipt of the survey report or the additional survey report, as the case may be, an insurer shall within a period of 30 days offer a settlement of the claim to the insured. If the insurer, for any reasons to be recorded in writing and communicated to the insured, decides to reject a claim under the policy, it shall do so within a period of 30 days from the receipt of the survey report or the additional survey report, as the case may be. (6) Upon acceptance of an offer of settlement as stated in sub regulation (5) by the insured, the payment of the amount due shall be made within 7 days from the date of acceptance of the offer by the insured. In the cases of delay in the payment, the insurer shall be liable to pay interest at a rate which is 2% above the bank rate prevalent at the beginning of the financial year in which the claim is reviewed by it.” Thus, it is evident from bare perusal of the above regulation that as per clause (5) of Regulation 9, the insurer has to offer settlement of claim to insured within a period of 30 days from receipt of survey report or additional survey report. Similarly, in cases where the insurer decides to reject a claim under the policy, it shall do so within a period of 30 days from the receipt of the survey report or the additional survey report, as the case may be. Further, the opening phrase as used in Regulation 9 (6) i.e., ‘Upon acceptance of an offer of settlement as stated in sub regulation (5) by the insured’, makes it evident that the payment of interest @ 2% above the bank rate prevalent at the beginning of the financial year in which the claim is reviewed by it, is payable only upon acceptance of offer of settlement, in case made by the insurer under clause (5) of Regulation 9. 12. In the present case, the respondents have repudiated the claim of the petitioner vide communication dated 28.03.2019, thus, evidently there was no offer of settlement of claim by the respondents, in sequitur, clause (6) of Regulation 9 is not applicable. 12. In the present case, the respondents have repudiated the claim of the petitioner vide communication dated 28.03.2019, thus, evidently there was no offer of settlement of claim by the respondents, in sequitur, clause (6) of Regulation 9 is not applicable. Thus, the contention of petitioner regarding interest @ 2% above the bank rate as provided under Regulation 9 (6) is not tenable and also the judgment relied upon by the petitioner in this regard is distinguishable on facts, hence, not applicable. 13. Thus, in view of discussion in the above paragraphs, the amount of claim as awarded by the learned PLA deserves to be modified. Accordingly, the amount awardable to the petitioner is as under: Particular Awarded by Learned PLA Modified/awarded by This Court Total Stock Damaged [A] Rs.15,84,214.78/ - Rs.16,32,837.86/- (Rs.15,84,214.78/- + Rs.48,623.08/-) Net Loss of Electrical Items [B] Rs.2,35,535/- Rs.4,33,492/- (Rs.2,35,535.30/- + Rs.1,97,956.70/-) [A] + [B] Rs.15,30,152/- Rs.20,66,329.86/- Interest @8% p.a. on [A] + [B] from the date of filing of application before learned PLA upto date of decision by learned PLA (i.e., from 11.01.2021 to 14.08.2024, total 3 years 7 months) [C] Rs.4,38,643/- Rs.5,92,348/- Total: [A] + [B] + [C] Rs.19,68,795/- Rs.26,58,678/- 14. Therefore, the petitioner would be entitled to the payment of modified amount of Rs.26,58,678/- along with Rs.5,000/- as litigation cost as awarded by the learned PLA. The aforesaid amount shall be payable in terms of the direction given by the learned PLA vide impugned award dated 14.08.2024 as modified by this court. Any amount, if already paid or disbursed, shall be adjusted. 15. Accordingly, in view of the above, the S.B.C.W.P. No. No.2855/2025 is partly allowed and S.B.C.W.P. No.649/2025 is dismissed. 16. Pending application (s), if any, shall stand disposed of. No order as to the cost.