Back
2018 Supreme(Jhk) 265
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J.
The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. - Petitioner
Versus
Vijay Kumar & Anr. - Respondents
W.P. (C) No. 1691 of 2007
Decided On : 15-02-2018
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. G.C. Jha
For the Respondents: Mr. Prabhat Kumar
The main legal point established in the judgment is the jurisdiction of Permanent Lok Adalat under Section 22C(8) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 and the importance of considering all relevant materials in the adjudication process.
Headnote:
Legal Services Authority Act - Jurisdiction - Section 22(C) - 22C(8) - The court discussed the jurisdiction of Permanent Lok Adalat under Section 22C(8) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 and the applicability of conciliation proceedings. The court also considered the procedural irregularity and non-consideration of materials including survey reports.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking to quash the order passed by Permanent Lok Adalat in a case involving a compensation claim. The petitioner alleged that the Lok Adalat had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute and raised concerns about the procedural irregularity and non-consideration of materials.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Permanent Lok Adalat had the jurisdiction to decide the dispute on merit under Section 22C(8) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. It also found no procedural irregularity in the Lok Adalat's proceedings and concluded that all relevant materials, including survey reports, were duly considered.
Issues: Jurisdiction of Permanent Lok Adalat, Procedural Irregularity, Non-consideration of Materials
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the judgment reported in (2012) 8 SCC 243 to establish the jurisdiction of Permanent Lok Adalat under Section 22C(8) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. It also emphasized the importance of following the principles of natural justice and considering all relevant materials in the adjudication process.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, vacated any interim order, and found no illegality in the impugned order.
Heard Mr. G.C. Jha, counsel appearing for the petitioner.
2. Heard Mr. Prabhat Kumar, counsel appearing for the respondent no.1.
3. No-one appears on behalf of Respondent No.2.
4. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for quashing of the order passed in P.L.A. Case No.13 of 2004 as contained in Annexure-7 series passed by Permanent Lok Adalat, Hazaribagh in exercise of its powers under Section 22(C) of Chapter VI-A dealing with pre-litigation Conciliation and Settlement under the provisions of Legal Services Authority Act, 1987.
5. The counsel for the petitioner submits as follows:-
a. A case was filed by the respondent no.1 before the Permanent Lok Adalat, Hazaribagh under Section 22(C) of Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 against the petitioner claiming compensation amounting to Rs.2,93,141/- with interest @ 18% per annum for damages of Tata-407 Mini Truck bearing Registration No.BR 13D 4945 registered at Hazaribagh and insured with petitioner/Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Jamshedpur Branch which met with an accident near Ghatshila on 20.05.2003.
b. The Permanent Lok Adalat issued notice and upon receipt of notice the petitioner filed a detailed written statement and also petition wherein the petitioner made various allegations against the respondent no.1 including production of forged and fabricated bills which as claimed by the petitioner was based on some investigation said to have been conducted by one investigator namely Mr. A.K. Srivastava.
c. The petitioner submits that the petitioner deputed spot surveyor who investigated the spot on 21.5.2003 (on the next date of accident) and submitted his report on 28.5.2003 and thereafter Mr. K.K. Sharma was appointed as final surveyor who submitted his report on 15.7.2003 and as per the final survey report the petitioner paid the claim of Rs. 11,270/- vide cheque no. 243418 dated 31.3.2004 in favour of M/s Tata Motors ltd. account Mr. Bijay Kumar (respondent no.1) as the vehicle was hypothecated with Tata Motors ltd. A copy of the spot survey report and final survey reports have been annexed as annexure-4 and 5 to the writ petition.
d. It has been recorded at para-13 of the impugned order that talk of conciliation continued for a long time but ultimately when the matter could not be settled by conciliation the Permanent Lok Adalat decided the dispute on merits.
e. Permanent Lok Adalat vide impugned order dated 24.02.2006 awarded the amount of Rs.44,950/- to the respondent no.1 herein payable by the petitioner- Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Hazaribagh by the end of March, 2006, failing which it is mentioned that the interest @ 6% per annum is to be paid by the petitioner.
f. It is further submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the Permanent Lok Adalat has got no jurisdiction to adjudicate any dispute and if the conciliation fails, then the only recourse which the Permanent Lok Adalat has, is to leave the matter for adjudication through the competent court of civil jurisdiction. On this point the counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2008) 2 SCC 660.
g. The other point of argument which has been advanced by the counsel for the petitioner is that the survey report, as contained in Annexure-5 series at page 28 of the writ petition, is an important piece of evidence which could not have been ignored by the Permanent Lok Adalat while adjudicating that dispute. He has relied upon the judgment reported in (2000) 10 SCC 19.
6. Counsel for the respondent on the other hand submits that so far as the jurisdiction by the Permanent Lok Adalat is concerned, the issue has been settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment reported in (2012) 8 SCC 243, wherein it has been clearly held that in case conciliation proceeding fails, the Lok Adalat has got jurisdiction to decide the case on meri
