Ranchi, Jharkhand v. Beerbhuwan Yadav, son of late Haridwar Yadav, Village
Case Details
1 W.P. (C) No.5925 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 5925 of 2016 Branch Manager, The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Branch Deoghar (Jharkhand) and Others, represented through Sri Kapil Kespotta, Asst. Manager and duly constituted attorney of The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Ranchi Division, Ranchi, Sethi Corporate, 2nd Floor, P.P. Compound, Main Road, Ranchi, P.O. & P.S.-Hindpiri, Dist.-Ranchi, Jharkhand .... Petitioner Versus Beerbhuwan Yadav, son of late Haridwar Yadav, Village- Sakrugrah, Kabutar Khopi, P.O. & P.S.-Borio Jirwabari, Dist.- Sahibganj, Jharkhand …. Respondent P R E S E N T
Legal Reasoning
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ….. For the Petitioner For the State : Mr. Ganesh C. Jha, Advocate : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate ….. By the Court:- 1. 2. Heard the parties. This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer for quashing/setting aside the award/order dated 14.05.2016 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Sahibganj in P.L.A. Case No.641 of 2014, a copy of which has been kept at Annexure-3 series of this writ petition whereby and where under, the Lok Adalat has held and decided the application filed by the respondent of this writ petition claiming reimbursement amount of Rs.1,34,812/- and expenses amounting to Rs.50,000/-. 2 W.P. (C) No.5925 of 2016 3. The brief fact of the case is that the respondent no.1- Beerbhuwan Yadav filed an application under Section 22 (C) of Chapter VI A of (Pre-Litigation Conciliation and Settlement) Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 against the petitioner-insurance company on 09.07.2014 claiming reimbursement of Rs.1,34,812/- and expenses amounting to Rs.50,000/- thus in total Rs.1,84,812/- on account of accident/damage caused on 05.05.2013 to the tractor of Mahindra make, of the said Beerbhuwan Yadav insured with the petitioner-insurance company. 4. The petitioner-insurance company filed written statement and opposed the case of the applicant claiming that the permanent Lok Adalat has no jurisdiction to entertain the pre-litigation matters relating to Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 and the permanent Lok Adalat has no jurisdiction to settle the dispute between the parties; by holding a trial. It was also contended that the driving licence of the driver of the tractor who was driving the tractor at the time of accident found to be invalid and the surveyor has assessed the loss of Rs.38,900/-. The relevant documents were filed by the insurance company. The insurance company repudiated the claim on 15.01.2014. 5. The permanent Lok Adalat passed the judgment/award without considering the surveyor report, invalid driving licence of the driver of the vehicle in question and violated the settled principle of law; by passing the judgment/award, in the absence of the Advocate or any of the representatives of the writ petitioner company. 3 W.P. (C) No.5925 of 2016 6. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the petitioner declined for the settlement, there is no way the permanent Lok Adalat could have passed any judgment/award as the permanent Lok Adalat constituted under the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 has no jurisdiction to decide the issue in a matter relating to adjudication on the basis of reasoning and evidence led by the parties. In support of his case, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Canara Bank v. G.S. Jayarama reported in (2022) 7 SCC 776, paragraph no.34 and 36 of which reads as under:- “34. This issue is clearly resolved from a bare reading of Section 22-C. Section 22-C provides a step-by-step scheme on how a matter is to proceed before the Permanent Lok Adalat. The first step is the filing of the application which ousts the jurisdiction of other civil courts, in accordance with sub-sections (1) and (2). The second step is the parties filing requisite submissions and documents before the Permanent Lok Adalat, in accordance with sub-section (3). On the completion of the third step to its satisfaction, the Permanent Lok Adalat can move to the fourth step of attempting conciliation between the parties, in accordance with sub-sections (4), (5) and (6). Subsequently, in the fifth step in accordance with sub-section (7), the Permanent Lok Adalat has to draw up terms of settlement on the basis of the conciliation proceedings, and propose them to the parties. If the parties agree, the Permanent Lok Adalat has to pass an award on the basis of the agreed upon terms of settlement. Only if the parties fail to reach an agreement on the fifth step, can the 4 W.P. (C) No.5925 of 2016 Permanent Lok Adalat proceed to the final step and decide the dispute on its merits. 36. The appellant’s argument, however, is that if the opposite party does not appear before the Permanent Lok Adalat, it can dispense with the conciliation proceedings and straightaway adjudicate the dispute under Section 22-C(8). We are unable to accept this submission. Even if the opposite party does not appear, the Permanent Lok Adalat is still bound to follow the step-by-step procedure laid down by Section 22-C. Under Section 22-C(3), it would require the party before it to file their submissions and documents, and make the best efforts to communicate them to the opposite party for their response. If it is satisfied that no response is forthcoming from the absent opposite party, the Permanent Lok Adalat shall still attempt to settle the dispute through settlement under Section 22-C(4). It is important to remember that Section 22-C(5) imposes a duty upon the Permanent Lok Adalat to be independent and impartial in attempting to amicably settle the dispute, while Section 22-C(6) imposes a duty upon the party present before the Permanent Lok Adalat to cooperate in good faith and assist the Permanent Lok Adalat. Thereafter, the Permanent Lok Adalat, based on the materials before it, shall propose terms of settlement and communicate them to both parties, regardless of whether they participated in the proceedings. If the party present before the Permanent Lok Adalat does not agree or if the absent party does not respond in a sufficient period of time, only then can the Permanent Lok Adalat adjudicate the dispute on its merits under Section 22-C(8). Keeping in mind the principles enshrined in Section 22-D, the Permanent Lok Adalat shall once again 5 W.P. (C) No.5925 of 2016 notify the absent party of its decision to adjudicate the dispute on its merits, in case it wishes to join the proceedings at that stage.” and submits that as is evident from the same, it was incumbent upon the permanent Lok Adalat based on the materials before it to propose the terms of the settlement and communicate the same to the petitioner but the same having not been done, so the permanent Lok Adalat certainly committed a perversity in adjudicating the dispute on merits. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent fairly submits that the Lok Adalat ought to have proposed the terms of the settlement and
Decision
communicated the same to the writ petitioner but the same having not been done and in case the impugned judgment/award is set aside, the matter be remanded to the Lok Adalat to comply the provision of Section 22 (C) of the Legal Services Authority Act. 8. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials available in the record, in view of the principle of law settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Canara Bank v. G.S. Jayarama (supra), the permanent Lok Adalat committed a perversity by not following the step by step procedure laid down by Section 22 (C) of Legal Services Authority Act, 1987. Hence, the impugned award/order dated 14.05.2016 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Sahibganj in P.L.A. Case No.641 of 2014 is set aside. 9. The matter is remanded back to the permanent Lok Adalat, Sahibganj to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after 6 W.P. (C) No.5925 of 2016 complying step by step procedure laid down under Section 22 (C) of Legal Services Authority Act, 1987. 10. This writ petition is disposed of accordingly. High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 20th February, 2024 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/- (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)