Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1784 (ALL)

ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. SITA DEVI

2018-08-14

ATTAU RAHMAN MASOODI

body2018
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Attau Rahman Masoodi, J.—Vakalatnama filed by Shri Dhurv Kumar learned counsel on behalf of opposite party No. 1 is taken on record. Heard Sri Anil Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Dhruv Kumar learned counsel who has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party No. 1. Opposite party No. 4 is the son of the claimant(opposite party No. 1) whereas opposite party No. 5 is the married daughter of the claimant(opposite party No. 1). 2. This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has assailed the order passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat on 7.3.2018 in P.L.A. Case No. 208 of 2015 whereby the application Ka-8 filed by the petitioner under Section 22C(4) & (5) of the Legal Services Authorities Act for settlement of the claim through conciliation has been rejected on the ground that the insurer in the previous settlements made through conciliation has complied with the award by making payment of cheques to the beneficiaries through the District Magistrate rather depositing the same before the PLA. 3. Sri Anil Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner drawing attention of this Court to clause 16 of the agreement has argued that the payment of a claim settled between the beneficiaries and the insurance company is to be made through cheque/draft and it is the duty of the concerned District Magistrate to ensure that the same is delivered to the beneficiary concerned. It is for this reason that any claim even if settled through conciliation in terms of the provisions of the Act is to be implemented as per the aforesaid clause of agreement. 4. It is further pointed out that such a mechanism of making payment to the beneficiaries brings the revenue authorities within the fold of an obligation to check multiple claims that are lodged arising out of one and the same mishap. 5. Sri Dhruv Kumar, learned counsel for the claimant, on the contrary, has argued that the insurance company being in collusion with the district authorities evades the responsibility of payment by making the claimants to run from pillar to post. It is only when the claimants approach the legal forum provided under the Act that the insurance company wakes up and thereafter indulges into all sorts of objections so as to defeat the legitimate claim of the poor victims covered under the policy. 6. It is only when the claimants approach the legal forum provided under the Act that the insurance company wakes up and thereafter indulges into all sorts of objections so as to defeat the legitimate claim of the poor victims covered under the policy. 6. Insofar as the present case is concerned, the death of one late Shri Ram occurred on 22.11.2009 and the insurance scheme at the relevant time was in force. 7. It is pointed out that the insurance company, at the initial stage, repudiated the claim on 18.5.2010 on the ground that the khatauni furnished by the revenue authorities alongwith the claim was not as per the terms of the policy, hence, repudiation of the claim was communicated to the revenue authorities. Later on, a computerized copy of the khatauni was forwarded by the revenue authorities alongwith the claim on 1.8.2010 but for the reasons best known, the claimant’s grievance was not redressed timely. 8. This Court from a plain reading of clause 11 of the agreement would gather that the beneficiary/claimant is bound to lodge a claim as soon as possible with the lekhpal and in no case a claim is to be lodged later than 120 days from the date of the mishap. The duty of forwarding requisite documents shifts upon the lekhpal concerned as soon as the application is filed who is under an obligation to forward the papers so that the amount of compensation as per insurance policy is paid to the beneficiaries without any delay. 9. As per clause 16 of the agreement, it is the duty of the insurance company to release the payment within a period of thirty days from the date of receiving the claim but no such effort appears to have been made in the present case despite the computerized khatauni having been submitted with insurer company. 10. Para 18 of the agreement provides necessary guidance as to who can claim the benefit of insurance policy and in the event of any dispute or objection by the insurance company, the matter as per clause 20 of the agreement is to to be returned to the District Magistrate who in turn would place the same before the committee headed by him so as to resolve the objection within one month. Once a decision is taken by the committee, the decision so arrived is final and biding upon the company. 11. Once a decision is taken by the committee, the decision so arrived is final and biding upon the company. 11. In the present case, the insurance company does not seem to have any objection to the entitlement of claim. The return of the claim to the District Magistrate after the computerized khatauni was furnished by the revenue authorities on 1.8.2010 seems unquestionable which clearly reflects that the case at hand is of delayed payment. It is also true that no effort except running from one office to another was made by the petitioner during all these years but when a claim was filed before the Permanent Lok Adalat on 1.10.2015, this Court may note that the district authorities as well as the insurance company for one reason or the other seem to have failed to redress the grievance of the victim claimants. Resultantly, the Permanent Lok Adalat seems to have proceeded with the matter. 12. Since, the regional office of insurance company is situated at Lucknow, therefore, by and large all the claims despite availability of Permanent Lok Adalats almost in every district are lodged at Lucknow where the Permanent Lok Adalat is functional. 13. This Court having regard to the territorial jurisdiction of Permanent Lok Adalats remaining defined districtwise would note that all such Lok Adalats are not functional for want of members or the staff. Therefore, a part of the cause of action having arisen at Lucknow would thus preclude the petitioner from raising any objection on this aspect of the matter and no such objection has virtually been raised although the position of law on such an aspect may vary. The entitlement of the claimant is also provided to be determined as per the provisions of Sections 171 to 174 of U.P.Z.A.LR. Act. Therefore, on the aspect of succession, the entitlement of the claim appears to be clearly defined under the agreement itself. 14. The controversy in the present case has thus narrowed down only to the extent of procedure that may be adopted by the Permanent Lok Adalat for the settlement of a claim. Act. Therefore, on the aspect of succession, the entitlement of the claim appears to be clearly defined under the agreement itself. 14. The controversy in the present case has thus narrowed down only to the extent of procedure that may be adopted by the Permanent Lok Adalat for the settlement of a claim. This Court having regard to the mandate of Section 22C(4)(5)(6) and (7) of the Act is of the considered opinion that the process of conciliation is mandatory and unless such a course having been adopted by PLA fails, the Permanent Lok Adalat would not advance to try the claims on the basis of evidence. The exercise of conciliation is mandatory looking to the essence of language used by the legislature under Section 22C(4)(5)(6) and (7) of the Act. Thus, the procedure of conciliation cannot be given a go by on any technical reason whatsoever. 15. The Court would make it clear that implementation of an award rendered by the Permanent Lok Adalat whether through the mechanism of conciliation or otherwise is open to be implemented by tendering cheque/bank draft before the concerned District Magistrate of which necessary proof shall be submitted before the Permanent Lok Adalat within the time prescribed. This mechanism shall be available provided the insurance company makes an application before the PLA soon after the award is rendered and the PLA shall grant the necessary permission to this effect without any delay. 16. The payment through the District Magistrate in terms of clause 16 of the agreement is necessary for the reason that the district authorities remain aware of all such claims having been put up and redressed whether through district level committee or through Permanent Lok Adalat. In view of what has been stated above, the Court would notice that the application filed by the petitioner before the Permanent Lok Adalat has been rejected on a ground which is too technical. 17. Since the process of conciliation between the parties is a mandatory exercise, therefore, the application filed by the petitioner ought not to have been rejected that too on a technical ground recorded in the impugned order. 18. This Court on the aspect of delay in lodging the claims would like to strike a note of caution for the insurance company as well as for the claimants. 18. This Court on the aspect of delay in lodging the claims would like to strike a note of caution for the insurance company as well as for the claimants. The claimants who are bound to lodge their claim in terms of clause 11 of the agreement are bound to pursue the same effectively and for any unreasonable delay caused by the district authorities, it is open to them to approach the PLA. Insofar as the period of limitation under the Limitation Act is concerned, this Court has already opined in writ petition No. 20736(M/S) of 2018 (The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Thru. Senior Divisional Mgr. v. Chote Singh and others) decided on 13.8.2018 that the period of limitation provided under the Limitation Act for lodging a claim before the Permanent Lok Adalat may be relevant but on a plausible explanation offered by a party, the same is condonable in absence of a bar. 19. Thus, in the present case, treating the claim of the opposite party Nos. 2 to be pending, the question of bar of limitation would not arise and the Permanent Lok Adalat shall accordingly proceed with the conciliation proceedings with due notice to the parties and the exercise be completed within a period of two months. Even if the conciliation proceedings fail for any reason, the proceedings before the Permanent Lok Adalat shall be brought to its logical conclusion not later than a period six months from today. The petition is accordingly disposed of.