Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 869 (JHR)

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajobla Devi

2018-04-17

ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

body2018
JUDGMENT Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J. - Heard Mr. P C. Roy, Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. 2. Heard Mr. Navneet Sahay, Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 3. This writ petition has been filed for the following relief : "For quashing/setting aside the Judgment dated 9.9.2008 and Award dated 20.9.2008 contained in Annexure-1 and 1/A passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Jamshedpur in P.L.A. Case No. 361 of 2007 whereby and whereunder the Permanaent Lok Adalat, Jamshedpur (hereinafter referred to as the Court below for the sake of brevity) has directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 2,26,000/- in exercise of its power under section 22C(8) and 22D of the Legal Services Authorities Act 1987." 4. The only point which has been raised by the Counsel for the petitioner is that the power under section 22 C (8) of Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 has been wrongly exercised by the Permanent Lok Adalat and the Counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order suffers from wrongful assumption of jurisdiction by Permanent Lok Adalat inasmuch as the condition precedent for adjudication under section 22 C (8) of the aforesaid Act has not been satisfied in the instant case. Counsel for the petitioner by referring to para-5 the impugned order as contained in Annexure-1 refers to following observations/findings of the Permanent Lok Adalat : "During conciliation O.P. National Insurance Company limited denied to conciliate this case on the ground that verification report regarding validity of Driving license has not yet been received. As such, this case is taken for determination under sections 22 C (8) and 22 D of Legal Services Authorities Act". 5. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner did not participate in the conciliation proceeding and there has been no conciliation proceeding in the matter in view of the fact that the petitioner had not received the report regarding validity of the driving license which was still awaited. It is submitted that as the petitioner did not participate in the conciliation proceeding and in fact no conciliation proceeding had taken place therefore the Permanent Lok Adalat could not have assumed jurisdiction under section 22 C (8) read with section 22 D of Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 and decided the case on merits. It is submitted that as the petitioner did not participate in the conciliation proceeding and in fact no conciliation proceeding had taken place therefore the Permanent Lok Adalat could not have assumed jurisdiction under section 22 C (8) read with section 22 D of Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 and decided the case on merits. Counsel submits that in view of this aspect of the matter the impugned order passed by Permanent Lok Adalat is wholly without jurisdiction and he submits that the impugned order is fit to be set-aside on this jurisdictional issue. 6. Counsel for the respondents on the other hand submits that although there has been no conciliation as is apparent from para-5 of the impugned order but still the petitioner had participated in the proceeding and accordingly it is not open to the petitioner to contend that the Permanent Lok Adalat had wrongly assumed jurisdiction under section 22 C (8) of the aforesaid Act. However, he could not dispute the fact recorded in para-5 of the impugned order as no counter-affidavit has been filed in this case. 7. After hearing the parties and after considering the material available on record, this Court is inclined to allow the writ petition on account of following facts and reasons : (a) section 22C of Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 reads as follows : 22-C. Cognizance of cases by Permanent Lok Adalat. - (1) Any party to a dispute may, before the dispute is brought before any Court, make an application to the Permanent Lok Adalat for the settlement of dispute : Provided that the Permanent Lok Adalat shall not have jurisdiction in respect of any matter relating to an offence not compoundable under any law: Provided further that the Permanent Lok Adalat shall also not have jurisdiction in the matter where the value of the property in dispute exceeds ten lakh rupees: Provided also that the Central Government, may, by notification, increase the limit of ten lakh rupees specified in the second proviso in consultation with the Central Authority. (2) After an application is made under sub-section (1) to the Permanent Lok Adalat, no party to that application shall invoke jurisdiction of any Court in the same dispute. (2) After an application is made under sub-section (1) to the Permanent Lok Adalat, no party to that application shall invoke jurisdiction of any Court in the same dispute. (3) Where an application is made to a Permanent Lok Adalat under sub-section (1), it- (a) shall direct each party to the application to file before it a written statement, stating therein the facts and nature of dispute under the application, points or issues in such dispute and grounds relied in support of, or in opposition to, such points or issues, as the case may be, and such party may supplement such statement with any document and other evidence which such party deems appropriate in proof of such facts and grounds and shall send a copy of such statement together with a copy of such document and other evidence, if any, to each of the parties to the application: (b) may require any party to the application to file additional statement before it at any stage of the conciliation proceedings: (c) shall communicate any document or statement received by it from any party to the application to the other party, to enable such other party to present reply thereto. (4) When statement, additional statement and reply, if any, have been filed under sub-section (3), to the satisfaction of the Permanent Lok Adalat, it shall conduct conciliation proceedings between the parties to the application in such manner as it thinks appropriate taking into account the circumstances of the dispute. (5) The Permanent Lok Adalat shall, during conduct of conciliation proceedings under sub-section (4), assist the parties in their attempt to reach an amicable settlement of the dispute in an independent and impartial manner. (6) It shall be the duty of every party to the application to cooperate in good faith with the Permanent Lok Adalat in conciliation of the dispute relating to the application and to comply with the direction of the Permanent Lok Adalat to produce evidence and other related documents before it. (6) It shall be the duty of every party to the application to cooperate in good faith with the Permanent Lok Adalat in conciliation of the dispute relating to the application and to comply with the direction of the Permanent Lok Adalat to produce evidence and other related documents before it. (7) When a Permanent Lok Adalat, in the aforesaid conciliation proceedings, is of opinion that there exist elements of settlement in such proceedings which may be acceptable to the parties, it may formulate the terms of a possible settlement of the dispute and give to the parties concerned for their observations and in case the parties reach at an agreement on the settlement of the dispute, they shall sign the settlement agreement and the Permanent Lok Adalat shall pass an award in terms thereof and furnish a copy of the same to each of the parties concerned. (8) Where the parties fail to reach at an agreement under sub-section (7), the Permanent Lok Adalat shall, if the dispute does not relate to any offence, decide the dispute." (b) This Court finds that the provisions of Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 as amended in the year 2002 whereby, inter-alia, a new Chapter VI A titled "pre-litigation Conciliation and Settlement" comprising of section 22 A to 22 E were inserted, was considered by Hon''ble the Supreme Court in the case of Bar Council of India v. Union of India 2012 (117) AIC 13 (SC)= (2012) 8 SCC 243 . wherein it has been held in para 23,26 and 27 as under : "23. The Statement of Objects and Reasons itself spells out the salient features of Chapter VI-A. By bringing in this law, the litigation concerning public utility service is sought to be nipped in the bud by first affording the parties to such dispute an opportunity to settle their dispute through the endeavours of the Permanent Lok Adalat and if such effort fails then to have the dispute between the parties adjudicated through the decision of the Permanent Lok Adalat. The mechanism provided in Chapter VI-A enables a party to a dispute relating to public utility service to approach the Permanent Lok Adalat for the settlement of dispute before the dispute is brought before any Court. 26. The mechanism provided in Chapter VI-A enables a party to a dispute relating to public utility service to approach the Permanent Lok Adalat for the settlement of dispute before the dispute is brought before any Court. 26. It is necessary to bear in mind that the disputes relating to public utility services have been entrusted to Permanent Lok Adalats only if the process of conciliation and settlement fails. The emphasis is on settlement in respect of disputes concerning public utility services through the medium of Permanent Lok Adalat. It is for this reason that sub-section (1) of section 22-C states in no unambiguous terms that any party to a dispute may before the dispute is brought before any Court make an application to the Permanent Lok Adalat for settlement of dispute. Thus, settlement of dispute between the parties in matters of public utility services is the main theme. However, where despite the endeavours and efforts of the Permanent Lok Adalat the settlement between the parties is not through and the parties are required to have their dispute determined and adjudicated, to avoid delay in adjudication of disputes relating to public utility services, Parliament has intervened and conferred power of adjudication upon the Permanent Lok Adalat. 27. Can the power conferred on Permanent Lok Adalats to adjudicate the disputes between the parties concerning public utility service up to a specific pecuniary limit, if they do not relate to any offence, as provided under section 22-C(8), be said to be unconstitutional and irrational? We think not. It is settled law that an authority empowered to adjudicate the disputes between the parties and act as a Tribunal may not necessarily have all the trappings of the Court. What is essential is that it must be a creature of statute and should adjudicate the dispute between the parties before it after giving reasonable opportunity to them consistent with the principles of fair play and natural justice. It is not a constitutional right of any person to have the dispute adjudicated by means of a Court only. What is essential is that it must be a creature of statute and should adjudicate the dispute between the parties before it after giving reasonable opportunity to them consistent with the principles of fair play and natural justice. It is not a constitutional right of any person to have the dispute adjudicated by means of a Court only. Chapter VI-A has been enacted to provide for an institutional mechanism, through the establishment of Permanent Lok Adalats for settlement of disputes concerning public utility service before the matter is brought to the Court and in the event of failure to reach any settlement, empowering the Permanent Lok Adalat to adjudicate such dispute if it does not relate to any offence." (c) This Court finds that admittedly the petitioner did not participate in the conciliation proceedings on the ground that a verification report regarding validity of driving license was awaited, but the Permanent Lok Adalat straightway jumped and exercised its power under section 22-C (8) of Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 and has decided the case on merits. From the ratio of the aforesaid judgment reported in (2012) 8 SCC 243 and also upon bare perusal of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 itself, it is apparent that condition precedent for exercising power under section 22 C (8) of Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 is failure of proposed conciliation under section 22 C (7) of the aforesaid Act. In the instant case admittedly there has been no conciliation proceeding and accordingly this Court is of the view that the Permanent Lok Adalat wrongly assumed jurisdiction under section 22 C (8) of Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 and decided the case on merits. (d) So far as the participation of the petitioner in the proceeding is concerned, the respondents have argued that having participated in the proceedings, the petitioner cannot raise the point of jurisdiction. This contention of the respondents is rejected as there is a statutory pre-condition for exercise of power under section 22 C (8) of Legal Services Authorities Act 1987 i.e., failure of proposed conciliation under section 22 C (7), and this Court is of the considered view that the assumption of jurisdiction by the Permanent Lok Adalat was itself bad in law and therefore the impugned order is wholly without jurisdiction. 8. 8. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed by setting aside the judgment dated 9.9.2008 and award dated 20.9.2008 passed by Permanent Lok Adalat, Jamshedpur in P.L.A. Case No. 361 of 2007. 9. However, it will be open to the respondents herein to take recourse to law for the purposes of getting their claim adjudicated in accordance with law.