Canara Bank v. G.S. Jayarama
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No. 580 of 2009 --------- Brahamdev Prasad, S/o Late Devdhari Prasad, R/o Parsatand (Barakal), P.O. & P.S.- Jharia, District-Dhanbad … … Appellant Versus 1. The Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Limited, Verma Mansion, 2nd Floor, Bank More, Dhanbad, P.O., P.S., Town & District- Dhanbad 2. Shahid Hussain, S/o Shakir Hussain, R/o Niche Kulhi, Jharia, P.O. & P.S.- Jharia, District-Dhanbad (Jharkhand) --------- … … Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN --------- For the Appellant For the Respondents
Legal Reasoning
set aside the order of the Permanent Lok Adalat. We disagree with such finding in view of the observation made by the Permanent Lok Adalat in its order dated 16.12.2007 and which can be deciphered to mean that the respondent-writ petitioner had subjected itself to the jurisdiction of the Permanent Lok Adalat and, therefore, the award which was passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat after considering the merits of the case cannot be faulted with. We therefore, on the basis of the aforesaid reasonings set aside the order dated 18.08.2009 passed in W.P.(C) No. 1174 of 2008 by the learned Single Judge and uphold the order dated 16.12.2007 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat in Pre-Litigation Case No. 15/2006. This appeal stands allowed. (Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.) (Deepak Roshan, J.) Alok/-
Arguments
: Mr. Lukesh Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate --------- 06/31.01.2024 Heard Mr. Lukesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Manish Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. This appeal is directed against the order dated 18.08.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 1174 of 2008, whereby and whereunder the writ application preferred by the respondent herein was allowed and the award dated 16.12.2007 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Dhanbad in Pre-Litigation Case No. 15/2006 was quashed. It has been submitted by Mr. Lukesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant that Section 22-C (8) of the Legal Services Authority Act gives power to the Permanent Lok Adalat to decide the dispute on merits if no settlement is arrived at between the parties. Learned counsel has referred to the case of “Canara Bank versus G.S. Jayarama” reported in (2022) 7 SCC 776. Mr. Manish Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that no efforts at a conciliation had taken place and, therefore, the initial criteria could not be fulfilled by the Permanent Lok Adalat and, therefore, -2- entering into the merits of the case to decide the dispute between the parties is nonest in the eyes of law. The respondent-writ petitioner has claimed that he was working as a Vegetable vendor earning an amount of Rs. 6000/- per month and on 27.10.2003 at about 7:00 A.M. he had met with an accident near Raja Talab, Jharia. It has been stated that the vehicle was insured with the National Insurance Company vide Policy No. 2002/6310716 which was valid during the period when the accident had taken place and, accordingly, the compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- on account of disablement, Rs. 2,00,000/- towards expenses on medical treatment and an amount of Rs. 70,000/- for mental shock and agony was claimed by the respondent-writ petitioner in the case filed before the Permanent Lok Adalat, Dhanbad in Pre-Litigation Case No. 15/2006. Vide order dated 16.12.2007 the Permanent Lok Adalat had allowed the compensation payable to the respondent-writ petitioner to the tune of Rs.2,50,200/-. The order passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat was challenged by the respondent-writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 1174 of 2008 which was allowed vide order dated 18.08.2009 and the award passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat in Pre-Ligation Case No. 15/2006 was quashed and set aside. In the case of “Canara Bank versus G.S. Jayarama” (supra) the powers of the Permanent Lok Adalat so far as Section 22-C of the Legal Services Authority, Act was under consideration and it has been held as follows: “22. Section 22-C of the LSA Act stipulates the instances in which Permanent Lok Adalats can take cognizance of cases. Section 22-C provides 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: -3- 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. (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 to the satisfaction of the Permanent Lok Adalat, it shall conduct the conciliation proceedings between application in such manner as it thinks appropriate taking into account the circumstances of the dispute. the parties (3), to (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. (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, the they shall sign Permanent Lok Adalat shall pass an award in terms the settlement agreement and -4- 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.” 23. Sub-section (1) of Section 22-C provides that any party to a dispute (covered under the jurisdiction of the Permanent Lok Adalat in accordance with Section 22-B) can approach the Permanent Lok Adalat before approaching a court. The proviso notes two exceptions to this : (i) the dispute shall not be in respect of any matter relating to an offence not compoundable under any law; and (ii) the value of the property in dispute shall not exceed Rs 10 lakhs. However, the third proviso stipulates that the Central Government may, in consultation with the Central Authority, increase this amount through a notification. Indeed, by Notification dated 20-3-2015 this amount has been since raised to Rs 1 crore. Under sub-section (2), once an application is made to the Permanent Lok Adalat under sub-section (1) in respect of a dispute, no court shall have jurisdiction over it. their factual submissions, 24. In accordance with sub-section (3) of Section 22-C, once the Permanent Lok Adalat receives an application under sub- section (1), it can direct both parties to file detailed submission issues raised and outlining arguments advanced. To support their submissions, the parties will be permitted to attach documentary evidence. Further, the Permanent Lok Adalat can direct the parties to file It shall also communicate any additional submissions. submissions or documents received by one party to the other, in order to enable them to respond. Once the procedure under sub-section (3) is completed, the Permanent Lok Adalat, in accordance with sub-section (4) of Section 22-C, shall conduct conciliation proceedings between parties in a manner it sees fit keeping in mind the nature of the dispute. 26. Sub-section 25. During the conciliation proceedings under sub-section (4), sub-section (5) of Section 22-C imposes a duty on the Permanent Lok Adalat to assist the parties in reaching an amicable resolution to their dispute in an independent and impartial manner. On the other hand, sub-section (6) of Section 22-C imposes a duty on the parties to cooperate with the Permanent Lok Adalat in good faith and produce any evidence/documents required for the resolution of the dispute. the Permanent Lok Adalat, when it is of the opinion that a settlement exists between the parties, to formulate the terms of such settlement and present it to the parties. If the parties are agreeable to the terms of the settlement, the Permanent Lok Adalat shall pass an award incorporating those terms and provide a copy to each party. Finally, if the parties fail to reach an agreement under sub-section (7), the Permanent Lok Adalat can decide the dispute on merits under sub-section (8) of Section 22-C, if the dispute does not relate to any offence.” (7) of Section 22-C empowers Sub-Section (8), therefore, envisages that in case the parties have failed to reach an agreement in terms of sub- -5- Section (7) of Section 22-C of the Legal Services Authority Act, the Permanent Lok Adalat can decide the dispute on merits if the dispute does not relate to any offence. A perusal of the order dated 16.12.2007 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat reveals that a finding has been given to the effect that there is no element of settlement or compromise between the parties and the case was heard and decided on merits with the consent of the parties. It would, therefore, mean that the respondent-writ petitioner had subjected itself to the jurisdiction of the Permanent Lok Adalat which had the legal sanctity to decide the dispute on merits in terms of Section 22-C (8) of the Legal Services Authority, Act. The learned Single Judge only on the ground that no consent was given by the writ-petitioner in writing the Permanent Lok Adalat was precluded from exercising its power u/s 22-C (8) of the Legal Services Authority, Act had