Chief Post Master General, Jharkhand Circle, Ranchi Head, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, Dist. Ranchi v. …
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 5436 of 2014 Chief Post Master General, Jharkhand Circle, Ranchi Head, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, Dist. Ranchi through K.D. Singh, son of Late Jhari Singh, at present posted as Senior Suptd. Of Post Offices, Ranchi having its office situated at and P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi, PIN-834001 Versus … … Petitioner 1. Qurban Ansari, son of Late Hayat Ali, resident of village Childag, P.S. Angara, P.O. Childag, District Ranchi Applicant/Respondent 2. Divisional Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Ranchi No. 1, Ved Narayan Bhawan, Kutchery Road, P.O. G.P.O. Ranchi, P.S. Kotwali, … … O.P. No. 3/Respondent District Ranchi … … CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner For the Resp. No. 2 12/10th July 2024
Legal Reasoning
--- : Mr. Prabhat Kumar Sinha, Advocate : Mr. Alok Lal, Advocate --- 1. 2. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 are present. Nobody appears on behalf of respondent No. 1. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: - “(A) For issuance of a writ or a writ of or in the nature of a writ of certiorari for quashing the decision/judgment dated 29.05.2014 passed by the learned Permanent Lok Adalat, Ranchi in P.L.A. Case No. 1075 of 2007 U/s 22C of the Legal Services Authority Act 1987 whereby and whereunder it has been ordered that the opposite Party Nos. 1, 2, 4 the Postal Department/concerned Post office is liable to pay claim/ compensation amount to the applicant. The Opposite Party Nos. 1, 2 and 4 are directed to pay claim/compensation amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac) only alongwith interest @ 7% per annum from the date of proposal i.e. from 29.01.2014 till its payment to the applicant Quarban Ansari. It is further ordered that if it is permissible under any law the Opposite Party Nos. 1, 2 and 4 may take the recourse of law for paid claim amount from Opposite Party No. 3 the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and the present case was accordingly awarded in favour of the applicant and against Opposite Parties. (B) For issuance of a writ of Mandamus to withdraw/cancel the aforesaid decision/judgment dated 29.05.2014 passed by learned 1 Permanent Lok Adalat, Ranchi in P.L.A. Case No 1075 of 2007 U/s 22C of the Legal Services Authority Act 1987 AND For a writ of Prohibition, prohibiting and restraining not to give effect to or to act in pursuance of or in furtherance of impugned Judgment dated 29.05.2014 passed by learned P.L.A., Ranchi in P.L.A. Case No. 1075 of 2007. (C) For issuance of any other appropriate writ/writs be issued, order/ orders be passed direction/directions be made as your Lordships may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that an order of permanent Lok Adalat has been challenged before this Court. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of argument has submitted that though there is no procedural irregularity, inasmuch as, the parties had participated but there has been grave injustice caused to the petitioner because of the reason that the permanent Lok Adalat has directed the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- with interest and that the petitioner had acted as an agent of the insurance company while deducting the premium amount from the account holder. 6. While giving the foundational dates, the learned counsel has referred to paragraph 5 of the writ petition to submit that the account was opened on 07.11.2006; the insurance amount of Rs. 15 was deposited on 16.12.2006; the amount was sent to Doranda Headquarter on 18.12.2006 and the account holder died in a road accident on 20.12.2006. He submits that everything happened in quick succession and therefore there was no delay and latches on the part of the petitioner to send the premium to the respondent insurance company. He submits that the petitioner had acted as an agent and therefore the liability ought to have been fastened upon the insurance company. He has submitted that this aspect of the matter having not been properly considered, the impugned judgment passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat calls for interference. 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent-insurance company has opposed the prayer and has submitted that as per the provision of Legal Services Authority Act, the judgment passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat is final and is not amenable to challenge unless there are any procedural lapse in the matter of conducting the proceeding under Permanent Lok Adalat. He 2 submits that since there is no procedural irregularity or any perversity, the judgment passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat does not call for any interference. He also submits that the right of the petitioner has not been completely taken away. Their right to proceed against insurance company as per law has remained intact by the impugned order itself. The learned counsel submits that the premium amount was remitted to the insurance company only on 31.01.2007, that is, much after the death of account holder and therefore the insurance company is not liable. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in response, has referred to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (1999) 8 SCC 229 (Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking vs. Basanti Devi & Another), paragraph 11 to submit that the petitioner was acting as an agent in terms of Section 182 of the Contract Act and once the premium was deducted from the account holder, the petitioner being an agent of the insurance company, the insurance company was liable. 9. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, admittedly there is no procedural error in conducting the proceeding by the Permanent Lok Adalat. 10. The impugned judgment reflects that the parties had fully participated in the proceedings and the petitioner was directed to pay compensation amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- along with interest @ 7% and further it has been ordered that if it is permissible under any law, the postal department who were represented by the opposite party Nos. 1, 2 and 4 could take recourse of law for recovery of the claim amount so paid from the opposite party No. 3 (the oriental insurance company). 11. The order of the Permanent Lok Adalat is quoted as under: - “That the opposite party Nos. 1, 2 & 4, the postal department /concerned post office is liable to pay claim/compensation amount to the applicant. The O.P. Nos. 1, 2 & 4 are directed to pay claim/compensation amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rs. One Lac) only alongwith interest @ 7% per-annum from the date of proposal, i.e. from 29.01.14, till its payment to the applicant Quarban Ansari. [ It is further ordered that if it is permissible under any law the O.P. Nos. 1, 2 & 4 may take the recourse of law for paid claim amount from O.P. No. 3, the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. 3 The present case is accordingly awarded in favour of applicant and against OPs.” 12. This Court finds that although the petitioner has been directed to make payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- with interest to the private party but the right of the petitioner to take recourse against the insurance company has been kept intact. The petitioner instead of availing the said remedy has approached this Court by challenging the impugned judgment and agitating his point that the petitioner had acted as an agent of the respondent-insurance company and therefore the liability ought to have been fastened upon the insurance company and not upon the petitioner. 13. This Court finds that as per the provisions of Legal Services Authority Act, the judgment passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat is final and the scope of interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is very limited. 14. The petitioner has neither been able to indicate any procedural irregularity (rather has admitted that there was no procedural irregularity in conducting the proceeding by the Permanent Lok Adalat) nor any ground has been made out calling for any interference in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ proceedings cannot be permitted to be decided as an appeal. 15. So far as the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (1999) 8 SCC 229 (supra) is concerned, the same was arising out of orders passed by the Consumer Forum and the grievance of the appellant-Delhi Electricity Supply Undertaking was that the said authority was fastened with the liability and the insurance company was absolved of its liability. 16. In the present case, there is observation in the impugned judgment that the petitioner may take recourse for recovery as per law and therefore there is no occasion for this Court to make any pronouncement by referring to the aforesaid judgment which has been relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner. 17. It is observed that the petitioner may still avail the remedy as mentioned in the impugned order as may be permissible under law . 4 18. However, no case for interference has been made out in this writ petition. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. 19. Pending I.A., if any, is closed. Mukul (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) 5