Order 1. The instant writ petition has been filed under Article 226 and 227 of Constitution of India, 1950 challenging the judgment dated 09.04.2024 (Annex.16) passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Chittorgarh (hereinafter referred to as ‘learned PLA’), whereby the learned PLA has awarded claim of Rs.14,50,000/- awarded in favour of respondent-Bank along with interest @7% from date of the filing of the application within a period of two month, failing which interest @ 8% would be payable from the date of judgment. 2. The instant writ petition has been filed with the following prayer: “It is therefore, respectfully prayed that on the grounds mentioned herein above it is humbly prayed that (a) The judgment and order dtd. 09.04.24 Annexure- 16 passed by Learned Permanent Lok Adalat, Chittorgarh (RAJ.) in case no. 89/2022, may kindly be quashed and set aside. (b) Any other relief, which your Honour may deem just and proper, may also kindly be granted in favour of the petitioner.” 3. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the instant writ petition are that the respondent-Bank took Bankers Indemnity Policy from Petitioner-Insurance company (Annex.1). On 14.07.2017, Insured Bank's Office Assistant, namely, Jankilal Khoiwal was carrying cash amounting to Rs.15,00,000/- from Kapasan Branch to Dindoli Branch, and on the way the cash bag was stolen. Subsequently, on the same day FIR (Annex.2) was lodged by Jankilal Khoiwal at Police Station Kapasan, District- Chittorgarh while stating that he was at Bus stop, and he got hit by a cow as a result he became unconscious and in the meanwhile the bag containing cash was stolen. After investigation the Police filed Negative Final Report (Annex.3) in absence of whereabouts of accused and found that the bag containing cash was stolen while the employee of the Bank i.e. Jankilal Khoiwal stayed at a grocery shop for enquiring price of commodity and kept the bag containing cash on the chair outside of that shop and in the meanwhile the bag containing cash was stolen from outside by unknown persons. The respondent- Bank filed Claim form (Annex.8) stating the story of theft as per FIR (Annex-02) and the statements of Jankilal Khoiwal recorded 161 CrPC Statements (Annex-04) that he was standing at Bus stop, a cow fell down on him during fighting with another cow, he got injured and became unconscious and the bag containing cash was stolen. 4. The respondent- Bank filed Claim form (Annex.8) stating the story of theft as per FIR (Annex-02) and the statements of Jankilal Khoiwal recorded 161 CrPC Statements (Annex-04) that he was standing at Bus stop, a cow fell down on him during fighting with another cow, he got injured and became unconscious and the bag containing cash was stolen. 4. Upon receipt of the claim, the petitioner Insurance company appointed IRDA Licensed surveyor, as required as per Section 64 UM of the Insurance Act, 1938 for assessment of loss. The surveyor after conducting enquiry recorded statement of Jankilal Khoiwal and Ramesh Chandra Branch Manager, who narrated the story of theft in the FIR. Thereafter, the petitioner Insurance Company repudiated claim on the pretext that the Bank employee himself was negligent and not following the Standing Operating Procedure as per Guidelines of the Bank. Violation of basic principle of insurance i.e. Utmost Good Faith and Misrepresentation of fact was also stated by the petitioner Insurance Company. 5. Aggrieved against the repudiation of claim, the respondent- Bank moved an application before the learned PLA claiming compensation. The claim application was contested by the petitioner Insurance Company by filing its reply. 6. Thereafter, as per the pleadings of the parties, the learned PLA framed four issues for determination. In support of its claim application, the respondent Bank examined its witnesses and also exhibited certain documents. On behalf of petitioner, Insurance oral as well as documentary evidence was led. 7. The learned PLA after hearing both the parties and considering the evidence led by the respective parties, allowed the claim application filed by the respondent-Bank vide judgment dated 09.04.2024 (Annex.16) and thereby awarded Rs.14,50,000/- along with interest @ 7% w.e.f. 12.05.2022. The learned PLA also awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony and cost of Rs.5,000/- to be paid within two months, failing which the same shall carry interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of award till payment. 8. Aggrieved by the judgment dated 09.04.2024 (Annex.16), the petitioner Insurance Company has preferred the instant writ petition. 9. In the instant writ petition, Mr. Anil Bhandari, learned counsel entered his caveat on behalf of respondent Bank. A reply to writ petition has been filed by the respondent Bank. 10. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner vehemently submits that the learned PLA has erred in allowing the claim application filed by the respondent Bank. 9. In the instant writ petition, Mr. Anil Bhandari, learned counsel entered his caveat on behalf of respondent Bank. A reply to writ petition has been filed by the respondent Bank. 10. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner vehemently submits that the learned PLA has erred in allowing the claim application filed by the respondent Bank. He submits that there are two contradictory statements given by complainant and the employee i.e. Jankilal Khoiwal. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while lodging the FIR it was stated that while the Bank employee (Sh. Jankilal Khoilwal) was at Bus stop, he got hit by a cow, as a result he became unconscious and in the meanwhile the bag containing cash of Rs.15,00,000/- was stolen; and on the contrary in the complaint filed with the claim form, the respondent Bank came up with the story as per FR (Annex.3) that after taking cash in the bag, while on the way, Sh. Jankilal Khoiwal stayed at a grocery shop and kept the bag containing cash on the chair outside the shop and while he was asking about the prices, in the meanwhile the bag was stolen from outside. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if the second version of the story is believed, then there was gross negligence on the part of employee of the Bank, who kept the bag containing cash outside the grocery shop and while he was asking for commodity price inside the shop, the bag was stolen. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that leaving cash bag outside unattended outside the shop is gross negligent conduct and, therefore, for the fault or negligence on the part of employee of the Bank, no liability could be fastened upon the Insurance Company. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the employee of the Bank i.e. Jankilal Khoiwal has not followed the Standard Operation Procedure (‘SOP’) of the Bank during the cash transit and thus there was violation of paragraphs 3, 4, 5 and 18 of SOP (Annex.12). 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the employee of the Bank i.e. Jankilal Khoiwal has not followed the Standard Operation Procedure (‘SOP’) of the Bank during the cash transit and thus there was violation of paragraphs 3, 4, 5 and 18 of SOP (Annex.12). Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondent Bank pleaded before the learned PLA that the Manager of the respondent Bank was not present at the time of incident, therefore, consultation with the Manager was not required and thus the respondents’ plea that Manager was not consulted and thus erroneous facts were stated in the FIR, is not sustainable. Learned counsel for the petitioner thus prayed that the writ petition deserves to be allowed while quashing and setting aside the impugned judgment dated 09.04.2024 (Annex.16). 12. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank submits that complainant Jankilal Khoiwal, employee of the Bank, was nervous and frightened upon lossing the amount and, therefore, initially the version of becoming unconscious was given in order to save himself. Learned counsel for the respondent Bank submits that after investigation in the FIR, the investigating agency arrived at the conclusion that the bag containing cash amount was stolen outside the shop while Jankilal Khoiwal went inside to buy some grocery. Learned counsel for the respondent Bank further submits that the petitioner Insurance Company had renewed the Policy on certain conditions and the respondent’s case was covered under Condition-(b) of the renewed policy, wherein it was specifically laid down that in transmit, by reason of any money and/or securities being lost, stolen, mislaid, misappropriated or made away with whether due to negligence or fraud of the employee/s of the insured or otherwise, whilst in transit in the hands of such employee/s such risk of transit to commence from the moment the same is received by the employee on behalf of the insured and to continue until delivery thereof at destination. 13. 13. Learned counsel for the respondent Bank submits that even if it is assumed that the employee of the Bank was negligent or had committed fraud, in the transaction of money, then too the insurance company cannot be absolved from its liability to pay the compensation, inasmuch as the petitioner Insurance Company accepted the proposal given by the respondent Bank while accepting the premium for renewal of the policy and as per Condition-(b) of the renewed policy, the petitioner Insurance Company has rightly been held liable by the learned PLA to pay the compensation, mental agony and litigation expenses. 14. I have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 15. This Court finds that the respondent Bank on receipt of the premium proposal sent a draft of Rs.9,27,246/- for covering the insurance for compensation with respect to loss by fire, theft etc. with the proposal that in certain branches of the Bank alarm bell and CCTV were not installed and for sending the cash to other Branches, there was no security personnel, and the same was to be carried by the staff from public transport or available vehicle viz. motorcycle/bus/Bank’s vehicle or through hired vehicle. While sending the aforesaid proposal, the respondent Bank clarified that these twin conditions were deemed to be covered under the policy and the petitioner Insurance Company while accepting the premium amount, accepted the aforesaid conditions. 16. This Court finds that while deciding the issue No.1, the learned PLA has relied upon the final report (Ex.D/14) prepared by the investigating agency, wherein it was specifically mentioned that while the employee of the Bank went inside the grocery shop of Manish Vijayvargiya to enquire about the price of commodities, and at that time, he was followed by two unknown persons, which fact was fortified by the footage obtained from the CCTV installed at the grocery shop as also the Bank. In the final report, it was inter-alia stated that the bag containing cash was stolen by two unknown persons, however, since whereabouts of thieves could not be known, therefore, FR was filed. In the FR submitted by the police, it was found that on 14.07.2017 in the morning at 11:15 am, when Jankilal Khoilwal went inside the shop, the bag containing cash was stolen. In the FR submitted by the police, it was found that on 14.07.2017 in the morning at 11:15 am, when Jankilal Khoilwal went inside the shop, the bag containing cash was stolen. This Court finds that the learned PLA has also considered the finding arrived at by the Surveyor appointed by the petitioner Insurance Company, and who in his report opined that someone had stolen Rs.15 lacs from Jankiklal while he was on the way from Kapasan to Dindoli. 17. This Court finds that the learned PLA has rightly recorded the finding that the respondent Bank had amply proved the incident of theft of bag containing cash, while the same was in transit with the employee of the Bank. Thus, in the considered view of this Court the learned PLA has not committed any error while deciding the Issue No.1 in favour of respondent Bank. 18. This Court finds no force in the contention raised by counsel for the petitioner that there was contradiction in the version set out by the employee of the Bank and the FR was submitted by the investigating agency after conducting thorough investigation in the FIR. This Court also finds that while filing FR in the matter, the investigating agency obtained CCTV footage of the incident, wherein it was specifically recorded from the CCTV footage, obtained from the grocery shop that two unknown persons, who were following Jankilal Khoiwal, stole the bag containing cash kept on iron chair outside the shop. Thus, the minor contradiction in the versions is immaterial and the theft of the bag containing cash has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. This Court also finds that as per policy condition, to be precise, Condition No.4 (b), while carrying cash less than 20 lacs rupees, no gunman or guard was required and loss by theft was specifically covered under the Policy. The learned PLA also relied upon Policy Condition No.4 (b), which inter-alia provide that for cash in transit exceeding Rs.20 (twenty) lacs and upto Rs.50 (fifty) lacs, one escort with Fire Arm shall be provided. The learned PLA also relied upon Policy Condition No.4 (b), which inter-alia provide that for cash in transit exceeding Rs.20 (twenty) lacs and upto Rs.50 (fifty) lacs, one escort with Fire Arm shall be provided. Further, as per Policy Condition No. (b), by reason of any money and/or securities being lost, stolen, mislaid, misappropriated or made away with whether due to the negligence or fraud of the employee(s) of the insured or otherwise whilst in transit in the hands of such employee(s) such risk of transit to commence from the moment the same is received by the employee on behalf of insured and to continue until delivery thereof at destination. Thus, in the considered view of this Court, no error has been committed by the learned PLA while deciding the Issue No.2 in favour of respondent- Bank, inasmuch as the proposal sent by the respondent Bank was accepted by the petitioner Insurance Company while issuing the policy and accepting the premium amount and loss by theft was/is specifically covered under the Policy issued in favour of respondent Bank. 19. Accordingly and in view of above discussion, this Court finds no force in the instant writ petition, the same is therefore, dismissed. Stay Petition also stands dismissed. No costs.