Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1482 (JHR)

Ram Pyari Devi v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

2009-11-20

D.G.R.PATNAIK

body2009
JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioners, in this writ application, have challenged the Award dated 20.01.2007 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Dhanbad in P.L.A. Case No. 1233 of 2005, whereby the Lok Adalat has held that the case is not maintainable before the Lok Adalat, with a further observation that the petitioners may file fresh case for compensation under appropriate law before appropriate forum, if so advised. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would want to explain by reference to the facts of the case that, the accident in which the deceased had sustained fatal injury, involved two vehicles. One vehicle was a Trekker in which the deceased was travelling and the other, a Truck which had hit the Trekker and had fled away. The Permanent Lok Adalat, on perusal of the corresponding F.I.R., had observed that the identity and the Registration No. of the vehicle which had hit the Trekker could not be ascertained and upon such observations, had noted that the facts of the case suggested that it was a hit and run accident case under the provisions of Section 161 of the Motor Vehicles Act and as such, the matter was not maintainable for settlement of the dispute by the Permanent Lok Adalat. 4. Assailing the findings, learned counsel wants to explain that the Permanent Lok Adalat has erred in failing to take note of the fact that the identity of the Trekker, which was also involved in the accident and the identity of the owner of the Trekker and also of the Insurer of the Trekker, was known and in fact, they have been made parties to the proceedings. Learned counsel argues that in this view of the matter, the Permanent Lok Adalat could not refuse to entertain the case for settlement. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company submits that the Insurance Company had objected to the dispute being referred to the Permanent Lok Adalat and yet, the Permanent Lok Adalat has proceeded to consider the case for settlement. However, since by the impugned order, the Insurance Company is not adversely affected, the Insurance Company has not preferred any redressal against the impugned order. 6. From the facts and circumstances, as it appears, out of the two disputing parties, the Insurance Company had objected to the dispute being resolved by the Permanent Lok Adalat. However, since by the impugned order, the Insurance Company is not adversely affected, the Insurance Company has not preferred any redressal against the impugned order. 6. From the facts and circumstances, as it appears, out of the two disputing parties, the Insurance Company had objected to the dispute being resolved by the Permanent Lok Adalat. Under such circumstances, the Permanent Lok Adalat could not possibly have proceeded to consider the case for settlement. However, it appears that the Permanent Lok Adalat has refrained itself from deciding the dispute arising in the compensation case, on the ground that the matter is not maintainable before it. 7. As it appears from the pleadings of the petitioners, the claim for compensation, as raised by the petitioners, is directed against the owner and Insurer of the Trekker which was involved in the accident and even if considered that it is not a hit and run case yet, it would be incumbent upon the claimants to prove the negligence on the part of purported offending vehicle. The appropriate proceedings, as rightly pointed out by the Lok Adalat, should have been under the provisions of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act and before the appropriate forum. 8. The Permanent Lok Adalat has rightly advised the petitioners to approach the appropriate forum for claiming compensation under appropriate provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. 9. I do not find any infirmity and illegality and there being no sufficient grounds in this writ application, this writ application is dismissed.