The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.13572 of 2012 Managing Director, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited …. Petitioner(s) Ms. J.P.Tripathy, Adv. On behalf of Adam Ali Khan, Adv. -versus- Chairperson, Permanent Lok Adalat for Public Utility Services, Ganjam and Ors. …. Opposite Party(s) Mr. Raja Lalit Mohan, Adv. (for O.Ps.2 & 3) CORAM: DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI Order No. 15. ORDER 15.05.2024 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2. In this Writ Petition, the Petitioner has made prayer to quash the award dated 31st March, 2012 passed by the Opposite Party No.1/ Permanent Lok Adalat for Public Utility Services, Ganjam, Berhampur (hereinafter referred to as “the Permanent Lok Adalat” for brevity) in P.L.A. Case No.2/12 directing the Petitioner/ Insurance Company to pay compensation of Rs.4,33,000/- to the Opposite Party Nos.2, 3 and 7 who is the widow of the deceased and her minor son together with interest at Page 1 of 7 Signature Not Verified
Legal Reasoning
Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 19-May-2024 08:38:32 the rate of 6 per cent per annum with effect from 22.10.2021 within a period of three months from the date of communication of that order. 3. Heard learned counsel for the Parties. 4. Facts culminating in filing of the present Writ Petition are that the Opposite Party Nos.2 to 3 had filed an application under Section 22 (c) (1) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as “the L.S.A. Act” for brevity) before the Permanent Lok Adalat for Public Utility Services, Ganjam, Berhampur claiming compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs only) on account of the death of their son P. Gandu Patra in a vehicular accident on 15.05.2011 which was registered as P.L.A. Case No.2 of 2012. 5. In the said application, the Opposite Party Nos.2 and 3 had arrayed the present Petitioner/ Insurance Company as Respondent No.3 and the wife of the deceased as Respondent No.5. 6. The Permanent Lok Adalat i.e. the Opposite Party No.1 issued notice to the present Petitioner/ Insurance Company fixing 07.02.2012 for its appearance as well as for filing of its written statement. The notice was sent to the Head Office of the Petitioner’s Insurance Company calling upon it to appear on 07.02.2012. The Head Office of the Petitioner’s Insurance Company after receipt of the notice sent it to its Branch Office at Cuttack for making appearance through a panel Advocate. But, due to some delay in completing the official formalities, the Branch Office of the Petitioner/ Insurance Company could not engage a lawyer to appear on the date fixed. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 19-May-2024 08:38:32 Page 2 of 7 7. However, on 20.12.2012, the Petitioner’s Insurance Company engaged
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Ramakrushna Panigrahi, Panel Advocate of the Petitioner’s Insurance Company for entering appearance before the Permanent Lok Adalat and for taking necessary steps in the matter. 8. In fact, the dealing Advocate after receipt of the brief from the Petitioner’s Insurance Company inquired about the status of the case from the Office of the Opposite Party No.1 and came to know that the Petitioner, who was arrayed as Respondent No.3 therein was set-ex- parte. Accordingly, on 27.02.2012, the dealing Advocate entered appearance on behalf of the Petitioner/ Insurance Company by filing Vakalatnama along with an application under Order-9, Rule-7 of C.P.C with a prayer to set-aside the ex-parte order dated 21.02.2012 and he had also filed another petition with a prayer to dismiss the case on the ground that the application filed by the applicant is not maintainable before the Permanent Lok Adalat. He further submits that the complainants ought to have impleaded the local branch of the Insurance Company, instead they chose to implead the Managing Director of the Company with Mumbai address which delayed the process of appearance in Court. 9. The case was posted on 12.03.2012 for hearing of the petitions and on the said date the counsel for the Petitioner filed a memo with citation. Thereafter, the matter was again fixed on 13.03.2012 for hearing of the petitions. On the said date, the petitions filed by the Petitioner were heard and the matter was put up on 24.03.2012 for passing of the order. Page 3 of 7 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 19-May-2024 08:38:32 10. The Permanent Lok Adalat vide order dated 24.03.2012 rejected the petition filed on behalf of the petitioner under Order-9, Rule-7 of the C.P.C and fixed the matter on 31.03.2012 for passing the order on the application filed under Section 22 (c) (1) of the L.S.A. Act. 11. Thereafter, the Permanent Lok Adalat vide award dated 31.03.2012 passed in P.L.A. Case No.2/12 directed the Petitioner/ Insurance Company to pay compensation as stated supra. Hence, this Writ Petition. 12. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that Permanent Lok Adalat has passed the impugned award without giving opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner/ Insurance Company violating the principles of natural justice directing the present Petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.4,33,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum. 13. It is submitted that law is well settled that the dispute touching upon “Insurance Service’ will not cover claim petition filed by the applicants/ claimants claiming compensation on account of death of their son in a motor vehicle accident. The same cannot be adjudicated by the Permanent Lok Adalat. Only the Tribunal constituted under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has jurisdiction to decide such cases. Hence, the impugned award under Annexure-5 passed by the Opposite Party No.1 is without jurisdiction. 14. .The Opposite Party No.1 while passing the ex-parte award under Annexure-5 has lost sight of the fact that the claim for compensation filed by the Opposite Party Nos.2 and 3 on account of death of their son Page 4 of 7 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 19-May-2024 08:38:32 arose from a tortuous act of another person which gives rise to their claim is a matter for adjudication by a court, as the claim is not coming within the term of “Insurance Service” as prescribed under Section-22A and 22B of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. 15. In such premises, he contends that for the ends of justice the impugned award passed by the Opposite Party No.1 under Annexure-5 may be quashed and the Opposite Party Nos.2 and 3 may be directed to seek the remedy under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in the appropriate court of law. 16. In reply, learned counsel for the Opposite Party Nos.2 and 3 submits that the deceased son of the Opposite Party Nos.2 and 3 has left behind his widow, a minor son and his parents. The deceased was a trolley rickshaw puller and was earning about Rs.200/- per day. On account of his death, the family members have been deprived of his income. 17. He further submits that the insurance policy valid on the date of accident. The rider of the offending vehicle having valid license and the offending vehicle being duly insured, the claimed compensation is payable by the insurer. 18. Moreover, while deciding the dispute on merit ex parte, the Permanent Lok Adalat was guided by the principle of natural justice in consonance with the provisions of Sections 22D and 22(2) of the L.S.A. Act.
Decision
Therefore, he contends that the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. 19. From the rival pleadings and submissions and the facts culminating in filing of the present Writ Petition, it is obvious that in this case the Page 5 of 7 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 19-May-2024 08:38:32 deceased died in a motor vehicle accident on 15.06.2011 leaving behind his widow/ Opposite Party No.7, a minor son and his parents/ Opposite Party Nos.2 and 3. The deceased was a trolley rickshaw puller at the time of his death and was earning about Rs.200 per day. Taking into account the aforesaid admitted facts, the Permanent Lok Adalat has passed the impugned award. 20. However, the Petitioner/ Insurance Company, in this case, challenges the award passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat for Public Utility Services, Ganjam, Berhampur on the ground that the said body had acted without jurisdiction in proceeding to decide a claim petition filed by the present Opposite Party Nos.2 and 3, the parents of the deceased who died in a vehicular accident, for compensation. 21. The Permanent Lok Adalat is established under Section 22B of the L.S.A. Act and exercises jurisdiction in respect of one or more Public Utility Services. It does not exercise a general jurisdiction and, therefore, it does have the powers to adjudicate any dispute unless the dispute is in respect of one or more public utility services. ‘Public utility service’ is defined under Section 22 A(b) of the L.S.A. Act and the claim made by the injured or legal representatives of the deceased person, in a petition claiming compensation for injuries suffered in a motor accident, will not be a dispute touching upon the Insurance service as defined under Section 22 A(b) of the L.S.A. Act. Consequently, the Permanent Lok Adalat would be precluded from exercising its jurisdiction to decide a claim petition filed by a claimant arising out of a motor accident. The Page 6 of 7 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 19-May-2024 08:38:32 Tribunals constituted under the Motor Vehicles Act have jurisdiction to decide such cases. Further, learned Permanent Lok Adalat has not even done the exercise of conciliation between the parties which is prerequisite for settlement of any kind of dispute before the Permanent Lok Adalat. 22. In such view of the matter, this Court is inclined to allow the prayer of the Petitioner. Accordingly, the impugned award dated 31st March, 2012 passed by the Opposite Party No.1/ Permanent Lok Adalat for Public Utility Services, Ganjam, Berhampur in P.L.A. Case No.2/12 is quashed. 23. However, the Opposite Party Nos.2, 3 and 7 are at liberty to approach the appropriate forum ventilating their grievance. 24. The amount of Rs.4,33,000/- deposited by the Petitioner/ Insurance Company in shape of Account Payee Cheque bearing No.410679 dated 30.03.2014 before the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court be returned to the Petitioner/ Insurance Company. 25. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of. 26. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated. Judge ( Dr. S.K. Panigrahi) B. Jhankar Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 19-May-2024 08:38:32 Page 7 of 7