Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1360 (JHR)

New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Gita Devi

2012-09-11

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2012
Order Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The writ petitioner-New India Assurance Company Ltd. being aggrieved by the award dated 05.06.2006 passed in Pre-Litigative Case No. 1232 of 2004 by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Dhanbad whereby the petitioner-company has been directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,36,690 out of the total award of Rs. 2,73,380/-being liability apportioned upon the Insurance-Company as compensation to the respondent nos. 1 to 5. 3. Upon notice, private respondents have appeared through their counsels. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned award has been passed without following the mandate of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 under Section 22(C) (4) to (7) of the Act. It is submitted that in Pre-Litigative Case the petitioner-company was issued notice on the claim petition of the private respondents/claimants, who are said to be legal heirs of the deceased Ram Prasad Gupta, who died in a road accident caused by collision between two motorcycles. However, it is submitted that the Permanent Lok Adalat was required to undertake efforts for conciliation between the parties and frame terms of settlement. This should have been offered to the parties to agree upon a compromise as per the object of the Act, 1987. It is only upon failure of the parties to agree upon on terms of settlement as offered by the Permanent Lok Adalat, the Permanent Lok Adalat should have proceeded to decide the dispute on merits under the provision of Section 27(C) (8) of the Act, 1987. 5. Learned counsel for the claimants are not in a position to refute the aforesaid facts that no efforts for conciliation were made and no terms of settlement were framed by the Permanent Lok Adalat and were never offered to rivals parties to arrive at a settlement by compromise. 6. However, it appears that the Permanent Lok Adalat has proceeded to decide the dispute in relation to the Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Case by adjudicating the dispute on merit without following the procedure prescribed in law, which has already been settled by the judgment of the this Court reported in W. P. (C) No. 1449 of 2008 vide order dated 09.04.2009 in the case of State Bank of India, Dhanbad Vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr. State of Jharkhand & Anr. It is apparent that the issue involved in the PLA Case relating to the writ petitioner is no longer res-integra that in a matter relating to motor vehicle accident claim, the Permanent Lok Adalat can entertain a claim, but can adjudicate the dispute on merits only upon failure of the rival parties to arrive at conciliation or settlement. If the parties failed to arrive at a conciliation or settlement after efforts made by the Permanent Lok Adalt by offering the terms of settlements to the rival parties then only the dispute should have been adjudicated under Section 22(C) (8) of the said Act, 1987, the instant issue has been settled by the Division Bench of this Court in W. P. (C) No. 1975 of 2007 dated 30.04. 2012 in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Kutchery Road, Ranchi Vs. Bodya Oraon and Anr. after taking into account several judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well. 7. In that view of the matter, the Permanent Lok Adalat has gone beyond its jurisdiction conferred under the Act of 1987 under which it is created. The impugned award is required to be interfered in exercise of Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances and in view of the settled position of law, the impugned award is not sustainable and is accordingly, set aside. 8. However, claimants are at liberty to raise their claim before duly constituted Tribunal having jurisdiction under the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, which may decide the same in accordance with law. 9. Accordingly, this writ petition stands allowed.