Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 75 (GAU)

Oriental Insurance Company v. Tanjeso Lap

2008-01-30

H.N.SARMA

body2008
JUDGMENT H.N. Sarma, J. 1. The points involved in these writ petitions being common, they are taken up for hearing analogously and disposed of by this common judgment. 2. I have heard Mr. N. Nyorak, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner in WP (C) Nos. 95(AP)/2007 and 96(AP)/2007. Also heard Mr. H.R. Obing, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner in WP(C) Nos. 93(AP)/2007 and 94(AP)/2007 and Mr. R.H. Nabam, learned Sr. GA, AP, for the respondent No. 2. 3. The necessary facts, for disposal of these writ petitions, may be summarized as follows: The respondent No. 1 in all the writ petitions filed cases before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tezu, claiming compensation under the provisions of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the "MV Act"). The petitioner company being the insurer of the related vehicle involved in the accident having impleaded duly appeared in the case by filing written statements. In all the cases interim award for no fault liability under Section140 of the Act was also passed. The learned Tribunal forwarded the cases for disposal by the Lok Adalat. The petitioner company was notified about the reference made to the Lok Adalat. On receipt of such notice, the Insurance Company prayed for adjournment of the cases on the ground of inability of the Divisional Manager to attend the Lok Adalat as he was to attend the Rural Insurance Workshop of Eastern Region at Kolkata during the relevant time. But such prayer for adjournment was refused by the Lok Adalat and vide the impugned order dated 18.12.2006 passed an Award against the petitioner and disposed of the claim cases. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner company could not attend the Lok Adalat due to genuine grounds expressed by the Divisional Manager, which was intimated to the Lok Adalat well advance in time. Accordingly, in absence of one of the parties, i.e., the Insurance Company, the Award could not have been passed in terms of Section 20 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (for short the "Act"). The learned Counsel prays for setting aside the Award and that the matter may be remanded back either to the Lok Adalat or to the learned Tribunal. 5. The learned Counsel prays for setting aside the Award and that the matter may be remanded back either to the Lok Adalat or to the learned Tribunal. 5. The learned Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the writ petition is not maintainable as an appeal lies against the Award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Further submission of the respondent-claimants is that the petitioner is not interested in settling such claim cases at an early date leaving serious hardship to the claimant and in that view of the matter, taking note of the objection early disposing of the claim cases, the Lok Adalat has rightly passed the impugned Award. It is further pointed out that the Award passed by the Lok Adalat is not excessive or bad on any count. In fact, the claimant though not entitled to higher rate of interest, the Lok Adalat awarded interest @6% per annum only and to that extent the petitioner Insurance Company is benefited. By submitting in the aforesaid manner, the learned Counsel for the claimant-respondent has prayed dismissal of the writ petitions. 6. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties. Regarding maintainability of the writ petition as raised by the learned Counsel for the respondents, under Section 21(2) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, every award made by a Lok Adalat shall be final and binding on all the parties to the dispute and no appeal shall lie to any Court against the award. Section 25 of the aforesaid Act provides that the provisions of the Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or any other instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. In view of the aforesaid legal position, the objection raised by the learned Counsel for the respondents regarding maintainability of the writ petition cannot be accepted. 7. Lok Adalat is an authority constituted under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. The relevant provisions for organization of the Lok Adalat and cognizance of the cases contained in Sections 19(5) and 20 of the Act, which are run as follows: 19(5). 7. Lok Adalat is an authority constituted under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. The relevant provisions for organization of the Lok Adalat and cognizance of the cases contained in Sections 19(5) and 20 of the Act, which are run as follows: 19(5). Organization of Lok Adalats--A Lok Adalat shall have jurisdiction to determine and to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties to a dispute in respect of-- (i) Any case pending before; or (ii) Any matter which is falling within the jurisdiction of and is not brought before any court for which the Lok Adalat is organized. Provided that the Lok Adalat shall have no jurisdiction in respect of any case or matter relating to an offence not compoundable under any law. 20. Cognizance of cases by Lok Adalats-- (1) Where in any case referred to in Clause (i) of Sub-section (5) of Section 19-- (i)(a) The parties thereof agree; or (b) One of the parties thereof makes an application to the Court, for referring the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement and if such court is prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement; or (ii) The Court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat, the Court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat: Provided that no case shall be referred to the Lok Adalat under Sub-section (b) of Clause (i) or Clause (ii) by such Court except after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the Authority or Committee organizing the Lok Adalat under Sub-section (1) of Section 19 may, on receipt of an application from any one of the parties to any matter referred to in Clause (ii) of Sub-section (5) of Section19 that such matter needs to be determined by a Lok Adalat, refer such matter to the Lok Adalat, for determination: Provided that no matter shall be referred to the Lok Adalat except after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the other party. (3) Where any case is referred to a Lok Adalat under Sub-section (1) or where a reference has been made to it under Section (2), the Lok adalat shall proceed to dispose of the case or matter and arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties. (4) Every Lok Adalat shall, while determining any reference before it under this Act, act with utmost expedition to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties and shall be guided by the principles of justice, equity, fair play and other legal principles. (5) Where no award is made by the Lok Adalat on the ground that no compromise or settlement could be arrived at between the parties, the record of the case shall be returned by it to the court, from which the reference has been received under Sub-section (1) for disposal in accordance with law. (6) Where no award is made by the Lok Adalat on the ground that no compromise or settlement could be arrived at between the parties, in a matter referred to in Sub- section (2), the Lok Adalat shall advice the parties to seek remedy in a court. (7) Where the record of the case is returned under Sub-section (5) to the Court, such court shall proceed to deal with such case from the stage which was reached before such reference under Sub-section (1). In the statement of objects and reasons for passing the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, it is noted that-- For some time now, Lok Adalat are being constituted at various places in the country for the disposal, in a summary way and through the process of arbitration and settlement between the parties, of a large number of cases expeditiously and with lesser costs. The institution of Lok Adalats is at present functioning as a voluntary and conciliatory agency without any statutory backing for its decisions. It has proved to be very popular in providing for a speedier system of administration of justice. In view of its growing popularity, there has been a demand/for providing a statutory backing to this institution and the awards given by Lok Adalats. It is felt-that such a statutory support would not only reduce the burden of arrears of work in regular courts, but would also take justice to the door steps of the poor and the needy and make justice quicker and less expensive. 8. It is felt-that such a statutory support would not only reduce the burden of arrears of work in regular courts, but would also take justice to the door steps of the poor and the needy and make justice quicker and less expensive. 8. The aforesaid relevant provisions of the Act disclose that the settlement by the Lok Adalat of a dispute is by way of compromise in the form of arbitration. Such a compromise may be made on the terms and conditions put forward to it after arriving at compromise or settlement by and between the parties to the dispute. 9. In the instant case, the petitioner company by submitting an application has stated that the Divisional Manager of the Insurance Company would not be able to attend the Lok Adalat in view of his pre-occupation that too for public purpose. The provisions of the Act also does not contain that such a dispute can be settled ex parte. In fact, the very genesis and object of settling a dispute by way of compromise between the parties, the Lok Adalat is to arbitrate to arrive at a decision on the terms and conditions put forward by the parties to the dispute. Once such compromise is arrived at, it would be final and binding on the parties under Section 21 of the Act. A Lok Adalat is not to decide the dispute like ordinary courts of law, compromise or settlement is its prime object. This is for the purpose of early settlement of the dispute between the parties. Accordingly, in the absence of the petitioner company the Lok Adalat ought not to have passed the impugned award. 10. The claim cases filed by the claimants have been pending since the year 2004-2006. Such claim cases are to be disposed of as early as possible so that to whatever compensation they are entitled to receive under the law is awarded to them at the earliest. That apart, early disposal of the cases also in the interest of the Insurance Company, inasmuch as, pendency of such claim cases and delay in disposal will saddle the insurance copy with heavy interest over the awarded amount, which is against the public interest, the Insurance Company being a public sector organization. That apart, early disposal of the cases also in the interest of the Insurance Company, inasmuch as, pendency of such claim cases and delay in disposal will saddle the insurance copy with heavy interest over the awarded amount, which is against the public interest, the Insurance Company being a public sector organization. Considering the objects behind organizing the Lok Adalat and the legal positions and the jurisdictions of such Lok Adalat to pass an award, I am constraint to hold that the impugned Awards were passed against such provisions. Accordingly, the impugned Awards are set aside and quashed. 11. Mr. Nyorak, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner company are ready to appear if the cases are taken by any subsequent Lok Adalat for early settlement of the matter. The learned Tribunal shall take note of this and do the needful. 12. Both the claimant-respondents and the petitioner company are directed to appear before the learned Tribunal, i.e., Deputy Commissioner, Lohit district, Tezu on 18.2.2008 on which date, the learned Tribunal shall fix a date of the case. If there is no scope for organization of such Lok Adalat, the learned Tribunal shall hear the cases as expeditiously as possible. 13. With the aforesaid observations and directions these writ petitions stand disposed of subject to payment of costs of Rs. 3,000.00 in each case to be paid to each claimant. The aforesaid costs shall be deposited by the petitioner company before the learned Tribunal on the next date fixed.