Back
2005 Supreme(Raj) 2674
High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : Prakash Tatia
Dr.Anil Sharma - Appellant
Versus
The District Legal Services Authority - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1542 of 2003
Decided On : 11/21/2005
Mr. M.S. Singhvi, for the Petitioners.
Mr. Manish Shishodia, for the Respondents.
The Permanent Lok Adalat has jurisdiction to settle civil disputes even if the offense is not compoundable.
Headnote:
Section 22C of the Legal Services Authorities Act authorizes the Permanent Lok Adalat to take cognizance of cases. Proviso (1) states that the Lok Adalat shall not have jurisdiction in respect of any matter relating to an offense not compoundable under any law. Proviso (2) provides the pecuniary limit of the Lok Adalat as Rs. 10,00,000/-. The court interpreted these provisions and concluded that the Lok Adalat has jurisdiction to settle civil disputes even if the offense is not compoundable. The court also held that claimants can withdraw or reduce their claim amount within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Lok Adalat.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought a declaration that the proceedings before the permanent Lok Adalat were illegal and should be quashed. The claim applications were filed under Chapter VIA of the Legal Services Authorities Act, claiming compensation for the death of their father. The petitioners argued that the claim applications were not maintainable and exceeded the jurisdiction of the Permanent Lok Adalat. The Lok Adalat allowed the withdrawal of two claim applications and permitted an amendment in the third claim application. The petitioners contended that the Lok Adalat had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim applications as the offense was not compoundable. The respondents argued that the Lok Adalat could settle the civil liability even if the offense was not compoundable. The court held that the Lok Adalat had jurisdiction to settle the civil dispute and allowed the withdrawal and amendment of the claim applications.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the relevant provisions of the Legal Services Authorities Act, including Section 22C which authorizes the Permanent Lok Adalat to take cognizance of cases. The court interpreted the provisos of Section 22C and concluded that the Lok Adalat had jurisdiction to settle civil disputes even if the offense was not compoundable. The court also considered the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Lok Adalat and held that the claimants were within their rights to withdraw or reduce their claim amount.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Permanent Lok Adalat has jurisdiction to settle civil disputes even if the offense is not compoundable. The court also held that claimants can withdraw or reduce their claim amount within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Lok Adalat.
Result: The writ petition of the petitioner is dismissed.
Key Points: - The Permanent Lok Adalat has jurisdiction to settle civil disputes even if the offense is not compoundable. (!) (!) - Proviso (2) of Section 22C fixes the pecuniary limit of the Lok Adalat at Rs. 10,00,000, within which claims can be entertained or reduced/withdrawn. (!) (!) - The court held that claimants could withdraw or reduce their claim amount within the Lok Adalat’s pecuniary jurisdiction. (!) (!) - The writ petition was dismissed, affirming the Lok Adalat’s jurisdiction to entertain civil claims arising from the same incident despite non-compoundability of the related offense. (!) (!) - The Lok Adalat is authorized to decide maintainability and allow amendments or withdrawals within its jurisdictional limits, rather than rebuke the civil claims on the basis of non-compoundable offense. (!) (!)
What is the jurisdiction of the Permanent Lok Adalat under Section 22C of the Legal Services Authorities Act when the offense is not compoundable?
What is the effect of the pecuniary limit in Section 22C(2) on maintainability of claim petitions before the Permanent Lok Adalat?
What is the permissible scope for withdrawal or reduction of claims within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Permanent Lok Adalat?
Prakash Tatia, J.-By this writ petition, the petitioners are seeking relief of declaration that proceedings taken before the permanent Lok Adalat in Claim Case No. 13/2003 may be declared illegal and be quashed.
2. According to the petitioners, Petitioner No. 2, wife of Petitioner No. 1 owns a private hospital at Kankroli which is Sharma Hospital. Petitioner No. 1 being doctor, is also working in the said Hospital as Surgeon. Three applications under Chapter VIA of the Legal Services Authorities Act (for short “the Act of 1987”) were filed before the Legal Services Authority-Respondent no. 1, out of which one was filed by Respondents No. 3 and 4 which was registered as application No. 14/2003. By this application, Respondents No. 3 and 4 claimed damages from the petitioner and from Dr. Nitin Gadgil in respect of death of their father Chandra Singh Babel. In this petition, the compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/-was claimed by the petitioners. Another application, which was registered as application No. 13/2003, was filed by Smt. Pista Devi claiming compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/-on the ground of damages which she suffered due to death of her husband and the third application being No. 12/2003 was filed by Shanker Lal, father of late Shri Chandra Singh Babel claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 6,20,000/-. The claims were filed because of the death of the victims in the hospital and on account of the same incident, a criminal case in respect of the same incident out of which compensation is claimed by the applications-Respondents No. 2 to 4, has been lodged. According to the petitioner, in view of the provisions contained in first proviso to Section 22C(1) of the Act of 1987, the claim applications were not maintainable. It is also contended that since the filing of the claims in all the three applications amounted to Rs. 26,20,000/-, the same was beyond the jurisdiction of the Permanent Lok Adalot. When this objection was raised, an application for withdrawal of case No. 12/2003 was submitted before the Permanent Lok Adalat and another application was submitted for withdrawal of claim application no. 14/2003. In claim case No. 13/2003, the claimants submitted application for amendment of the claim petition making the total claim to the tune of Rs. 10,00,000/-and to include names of her both the children in this claim petition. Reply was filed by Smt. Pista Devi in claim case No. 13/2003. The Permanent Lok Adalat permitted withdrawal of the claim applications No. 12/2003 and 14/2003 and also allowed the amendment in claim case No. 13/2003 as desired by the claimants. The Permanent Lok Adalat instead of deciding objection about maintainability of the claim petition of the claimants, directed the petitioners to file reply to the claim cases and fixed date as 22.04.2003.
3. According to the petitioner, the claim petitions are not maintainable in view of the Section 22C which provides that the Permanent Lok Adalat shall not have jurisdiction in respect of any matter relating to an offence not compoundable under any law. According to the petitioner, as per Section 22D of the Act of 1987, the Permanent Lok Adalat is required to conduct conciliation proceedings before deciding the dispute on merit under the Act and in view of the above legal position when the dispute cannot be settled being not compoundable, the proceedings cannot be taken for the said subject matter in the Permanent Lok Adalat which is clear from reading of Section 22C and 22C. It is also submitted that in the present case, first information report has been lodged under Section 304A, IPC and offence under Section 304A, IPC is not compoundable, therefore, the claim-petitions filed by the claimants is not maintainable as the Permanent Lok Adalat has no jurisdiction to entertain the claim applications of the claimants. In addition to above, it is also submitted that the total claim of the claimants have been bifurcated in three claim cases so as to bring the cla
