The central legal point established in the judgment is that entities with substantial financial presence cannot claim equality with weaker sections of society in seeking alternate dispute resolution from the Permanent Lok Adalat.

JUDGMENT

1. Mr. Mishra, learned senior advocate appears on behalf of petitioner insurance company. He submits, the insured was not a person eligible to seek alternate dispute resolution from the Permanent Lok Adalat (PLA). He refers to, inter alia, the preamble and section 12 in Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 to submit, the alternate dispute resolution forum was established to provide justice to weaker sections of the society. He draws attention to impugned award dated 31st October, 2019 made by the PLA in favour of the insured, being a company with authorized capital of Rs.2 crores and paid up capital of Rs.1.76 crores. Such a party went to the PLA and said that there should be adjudication on repudiation of the claim. The PLA, without following procedure provided for adjudication by Courts, passed impugned award.

2. In keeping with object of the Act, organization and establishment of Lok Adalats and Permanent Lok Adalats, he submits with reference to section 12 and rule 16 in Orissa State Legal Services Authority Rules, 1996, it is legal services offered by State to every person, whose annual income from all sources does not exceed three lakhs rupees. That is why, inter alia, Permanent Lok Adalats were established. He lays emphasis on term 'Lok' to submit, it must be a person entitled to legal services, being member of weaker sections of the society, who is entitled to approach the PLA. Opposite parties may be corporations or banks but a corporation with substantial financial presence cannot take advantage of provisions in the Act to bypass adjudication in Court. He submits, it is irrelevant that value of the property has been increased to Rs.1 crore, from initially legislated value of Rs.10 lakhs.

3. Mr. Roy, learned advocate appears on behalf of opposite party no.1 and relies on judgment dated 19th May, 2022 of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal no.3872 of 2022 (Canara Bank v. G.S. Jayarama), paragraphs-18, 24 and 30. On query from Court Mr. Roy submits, in the case, neither the preamble nor section 12 was under consideration by the Supreme Court.

4. He submits, his client is not entitled to and did not seek legal aid. That is not a bar for his client to have moved the PLA. It did so with a claim within increased property value of Rs.1 crore and has obtained impugned award. He submits, the Supreme Court in Rajoo v. State of MP reported in (2012) 8 SCC 553, in paragraph-10 had noticed that section 12 of the Act lays down criteria for providing legal services.

5. Preamble of Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 is reproduced below.

'An Act to constitute legal services authorities to provide free and competent legal services to the weaker sections of the society to ensure that opportunities for securing justice are not denied to any citizen by reason of economic or other disabilities, and to organize Lok Adalats to secure that the operation of the legal system promotes justice on a basis of equal opportunity.'

6. Court required production of the policy and petitioner filed additional affidavit disclosing it. Insured, named in the policy, is a private limited company. Court has ascertained that the company was petitioner in the PLA. Its pleading was signed by a Director. Procedure required by rule 1 in order XXIX of the Code of Civil Procedure appears to have been satisfied. The point for adjudication is, however, whether the company could have been petitioner before the PLA. More so because, by section 22-E every award of the PLA, either on merits or on terms of settlement, is mandated to be final and binding on all parties, deemed to be decree of civil Court, as cannot be called in question in any original suit, application or execution proceeding and capable of execution. No appeal is provided. Impugned award is for payment of Rs.42,64,051/- along with accrued interest. Since the company approached the PLA before either party had moved Court, impugned award was made by the PLA, on deciding the dispute.

7. The insured is a corp