The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the mandatory procedure under section 22-C of the Legal Services Authorities Act and the liability of the registered owner in cases of motor accidents.

ORDER :

(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)

I.A No. 7417 of 2022

This application has been filed seeking condonation of delay of 90 days in filing the present Letters Patent Appeal.

The State has raised no objection.

For the reasons stated in the application, I.A No. 7417 of 2022 is allowed and delay of 90 days in filing this present Letters Patent Appeal is condoned.

L.P.A No. 316 of 2022

The appellant has questioned legality of the order dated 29th March 2022 passed in W.P.(C) No. 4336 of 2007, on the ground that the mandatory procedure under section 22-C of the Legal Services Authorities Act (in short, Legal Services Act) has not been followed by the Permanent Lok Adalat in P.L.A Case No. 77 of 2006.

2. In the first place, we intend to indicate that to support this plea the appellant was required to produce the entire proceedings in P.L.A Case No. 77 of 2006 which step he did not take either before the writ Court or in the present proceeding.

3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the brief facts of this case are that the appellant was the registered owner of the vehicle bearing no. CG-04A/8394 which he had transferred to the respondent no.3 through an agreement for sale dated 12th April 2004. According to the appellant, by virtue of the said agreement for sale he was indemnified from all liabilities arising from or of the aforesaid motor vehicle. On 2nd September 2004, the said vehicle was involved in a motor accident near Tube Company Gate in which the husband of the respondent no.2 has suffered fatal injuries and died. Accordingly, Burma Mines P.S Case No. 139 of 2004 was registered into the said incident. The respondent no.2 has simultaneously filed an application under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for payment of compensation and the said case was registered as P.L.A Case No. 77 of 2006. By an order dated 14th June 2007, the appellant was directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.1,54,500/-to the respondent no.2 with interest at the rate of 14% per annum from the date of application.

4. Mr. Ashish Kumar Shekhar, the learned counsel for the appellant has referred to the decision in “Canara Bank v. G.S. Jayarama” (2022) 7 SCC 776 to submit that no award can be made by the Permanent Lok Adalat without following the procedure laid down under section 22-C of the Legal Services Act.

5. In paragraph nos. 35 and 36 of the aforesaid judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:

“35. Such an interpretation is also supported by the decision of a two-Judge Bench of this Court in Bar Council of India, where the constitutionality of Chapter VI-A of the LSA Act was upheld. Speaking for the Bench, R.M. Lodha, J. highlighted that the Permanent Lok Adalats would proceed to adjudication of a dispute on its merits only after attempting and failing to generate a settlement between the parties : (SCC pp. 254-56, paras 22-23 & 26)

“22. Chapter VI-A inserted by the 2002 Amendment Act in the 1987 Act, as its title suggests, provides for pre-litigation conciliation and settlement procedure. …The disputes in relation to public utility service need urgent attention with focus on their resolution at the threshold by conciliation and settlement and if for any reason such effort fails, then to have such disputes adjudicated through an appropriate mechanism as early as may be possible. …

23. The Statement of Objects and Reasons itself spells out the salient features of Chapter VI-A. By bringing in this law, the litigation concerning public utility service is sought to be nipped in the bud by first affording the parties to such dispute an opportunity to settle their dispute through the endeavours of the Permanent Lok Adalat and if such effort fails then to have the dispute between the parties adjudicated through the decision of the Permanent Lok Adalat. …

***

26. It is necessary to bear in mind that the disputes relating to public utility services have been entrusted to Permanent Lok Adalats only if the process of conciliation and settleme