Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1585 (JHR)

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Md. Anjar Alam

2012-11-02

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2012
ORDER Heard counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 21.8.2007 and the award dated 23.8.2007 (Annexure-1 series) passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Jamshedpur in P.L.A. Case No. 79 of 2007 whereby it has awarded a sum of Rs.2,39,000/- in a claim application under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 against the petitioner- company in exercise of powers under Section 22C of the Legal Service Authority Act, 1987. 3. Respondent- claimant has already appeared on notice through their counsel in the year 2008 and represented today also. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the claimant approached the Permanent Lok Adalat in a pre-litigative case in PLA Case No. 79 of 2009 claiming compensation on account of injury sustained by him as a result of accident which occurred on 28.10.2005 at about 4 a.m. in the morning when a truck bearing registration no. BR08-7666 was coming from Jamshedpur and one chassis bearing registration no. JH05A 3450 collided with the truck of the claimant as a result of which he has become permanently disabled. Counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that in a claim arising out of M.V. Act under the policy of Insurance Company, the claimant approached the Permanent Lok Adalat in a pre-lltigative case instead of invoking the jurisdiction of duly constituted Tribunal under special act, i.e. M.V. Act of 1988. He has further submitted that claim itself was disputed as it was third party claim which does not come under the purview of Public Utility Service under Section 22(A)(b) of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1988. Counsel for the petitioner however, vehemently assailed the impugned order and award on the ground that Permanent Lok Adalat should not have proceeded to adjudicate the dispute on merit without resorting to the procedure prescribed under 22(C)(4) to (7) of the Act of 1988. In support of his aforesaid contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of this court in the case of State Bank of India, Dhanbad Vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr. passed in W. P. (C) No. 1449 of 2008 vide order dated 09.04.2009 by the Single Bench of this Court and in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Kutchery Road, Ranchi Vs. Bodya Oraon and Anr. passed in W. P. (C) No. 1975 of 2007 dated 30.04. 2012 by the Division Bench of this Court. passed in W. P. (C) No. 1449 of 2008 vide order dated 09.04.2009 by the Single Bench of this Court and in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Kutchery Road, Ranchi Vs. Bodya Oraon and Anr. passed in W. P. (C) No. 1975 of 2007 dated 30.04. 2012 by the Division Bench of this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent- claimant , however submitted that the award has been passed in accordance with law after adducing all evidences by the claimant by a speaking order which does not require interference of this court. However counsel for the respondent – claimant has not been able to dispute the contention of the petitioner that the Permanent Lok Adalat did not frame the terms of settlement and offer it to the parties to arrive at a agreed settlement in terms of Section 22(C)(4) to (7) of the Act of 1987. 5. I have heard the parties at length and gone through the relevant materials on record including the impugned award. It appears that a pre- litigative case was instituted on a claim application of the respondent no. 1- claimant before the Permanent Lok Adalat, Jamshedpur being PLA Case No. 79 of 2007 claiming compensation under the policy of the petitioner- Insurance Company of Rs.6,20,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a road accident which occurred on 28.10.2005. It appears that after institution of the PLA case Insurance Company was noticed and it was the case of the Insurance Company that the claim of the petitioner was not payable since the disputed question was involved as the accident occurred involving 2 vehicles having insurance with 2 different Insurance Company including the petitioner. The matter also required adjudication upon the act of rashness and negligent of both the driver before adjudicating the claim of compensation saddled upon the petitioner- company. More over from the submission of the parties also it appears that the Permanent Lok Adalat failed to frame the terms of settlement and/ or offer it to the parties to arrive at an agreement over the settlement and only on the failure of the conciliation / settlement between the parties, it could have proceeded to decide the dispute on merit under Section 22(C) of the Act. The aforesaid legal position has been upheld by various judgment of this court referred to supra. The aforesaid legal position has been upheld by various judgment of this court referred to supra. The Division Bench of this court has held that Motor Vehicle claim can be entertained by the Permanent Lok Adalat but it adjudicate it on merit only after following the procedure under Section 22(C)(4) to (7) of the Act. Learned Permanent Lok Adalat appears to have committed serious error of jurisdiction by not following the procedure prescribed under the law up held by the judgment of this court while deciding the dispute on merit saddling the petitioner – company with an award of compensation in a claim application under Section 163 A of MV Act, 1988. In these circumstances the impugned award cannot be sustained in law as the Permanent Lok Adalat has committed serious error of jurisdiction. In that view of the matter, this court in exercise of supervisory power under Article 227 considers it fit case to set aside the impugned order and award and accordingly, the impugned order and award are quashed. 6. However, the claimant are at liberty to approach the appropriate Forum for seeking compensation in accordance with law. 7. The writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.