Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 64 (JHR)

Bishwanath Prasad v. Ashok Kumar Dubey

2013-01-10

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2013
ORDER 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Although, respondent no. 1 has entered appearance, but no one appears on his behalf. 3. This writ petition has been preferred for challenging the order dated 15.10.2007 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Jamshedpur in P.L.A. Case No 107 of 2006 whereby the claim of the respondent no. 1 has been allowed and compensation of Rs. 91,468/- has been awarded to him fixing liability upon the petitioner. 4. According to the petitioner, the claim petition was preferred by the respondent no. 1 in Pre-Litigation Case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 alleging therein that on 12.9.2004 in the afternoon he met with an accident while driving his Motorcycle, on account of rash and negligent driving of the Tempo bearing Registration No. BR16A-0730, which was registered in the name of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the said Tempo had been transferred to one Dharmendra Kumar Gupta, who has been impleaded as respondent no. 2 by the petitioner and on 2.6.2004, the Tempo was in his possession as the vehicle was also released to him by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur in G.R. Case No. 1520 of 2004 vide order dated 17.12.2004. According to the petitioner, he appeared on notice before the Permanent Lok Adalat, Jamshedpur and contested the claim of the claimants on merits showing that the vehicle, on the date of accident, was not owned by him, but the learned Court, without following the procedure prescribed under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, has proceeded to decide the claim award and compensation holding that the petitioner is liable for the same by adjudicating the dispute on merit. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although there is also Tribunal constituted under the Motor Vehicles Act to determine the claim arising out of the Motor Vehicle Accident Case, but the claimant chosen to go to Permanent Lok Adalat where such issues can only be decided on the basis of compromise or settlement between the parties in view of the scheme and object of the Act, 1987. It is further submitted that the Permanent Lok Adalat straightway proceeded to decide the dispute on merit without following the procedure under Sections 22(C)(4) to (7) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. It is further submitted that the Permanent Lok Adalat straightway proceeded to decide the dispute on merit without following the procedure under Sections 22(C)(4) to (7) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. The Permanent Lok Adalat has to make efforts for conciliation and frame terms of settlement and offer it to the parties to arrive at compromise or agreed terms of settlement over the dispute and only upon failure to do so can proceed to adjudicate the dispute on merit. It is submitted that from perusal of the impugned order, it appears that no terms of settlement were framed and even no proper efforts for conciliation were made before the Permanent Lok Adalat proceeded to decide the dispute on merit under Section 22(C)(8) of the Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Single Bench of this Court in the case of State Bank of India, Dhanbad vs. State of Jharkhand & another, passed in WP (C) No. 1449 of 2008 vide order dated 9.4.2009 and the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Kutchery Road, Ranchi vs. Bodya Oraon and another passed in WP (C) No. 1975 of 2007 vide order dated 30.4.2012 in support of aforesaid contention that the order or Award passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat is beyond jurisdiction. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the impugned order. From the facts, which have been brought on record and on perusal of the impugned Award it seems that for an accident, which occurred due to collision between two vehicles in which one belonged to the claimant and other is said to be in the name of the present petitioner, the claimant sustained severe injury for which he preferred a claim before the Permanent Lok Adalat being P.L.A. Case No. 107 of 2006 for seeking compensation of Rs. 1,71,000/- under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 1,71,000/- under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Although, it is now well settled in view of the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court (supra) after relying upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court that the Permanent Lok Adalat has jurisdiction to entertain the dispute arising out of Motor Vehicle Claim Case, but at the same time it has been laid down that the Permanent Lok Adalat has to follow the procedure prescribed under Sections 22(C)(4) to (7) of the same Act before adjudicating the dispute on merit. 7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it does not appear from the impugned order as well as the statement on record that the Permanent Lok Adalat has framed any terms of settlement and offered it to the parties to arrive at compromise or agreed settlement in a matter, which was seriously contested by the petitioner on merit. The Permanent Lok Adalat straightway proceeded to decide the dispute on merit, which is in the teeth of law laid down by the judgments (supra) and also failed to follow the procedure prescribed order the Act, 1987. The impugned order suffers from serious errors of jurisdiction for failure to follow the mandate of the law and Act under which it is created and, therefore, the impugned Award deserves to be set aside in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, impugned order dated 15.10.2007 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat Jamshedpur in P.L.A. Case No. 107 of 2006 is quashed. 8. However, it is observed that the claimant-respondent no. 1, if so advised, may approach duly constituted Motor Vehicle Tribunal for seeking compensation, if permissible in law. 9. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.