PLAPUS has the power, jurisdiction and authority to decide a dispute between the parties on merit under the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987, and the award passed by PLAPUS is final and binding on all parties concerned.

Paramjeet Singh, J.

Instant writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned award dated 02.01.2013 (Annexure P-1) passed by Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Patiala (hereinafter referred to as 'PLAPUS'), on an application moved by respondent No.1 whereby he had sought cancellation of the policy and refund of amount of Rs. 1.00 lac along with interest @ 8%.

2. The facts averred in the present writ petition in nutshell are that respondent No.1 being a prudent and educated person, an advocate by profession, fully understanding the terms and conditions of "Bajaj Allianz Unit Gain" unit linked plan, proposed for the said policy himself. The proposal of respondent No.1 was accepted by the petitioners and policy bearing number 009353148 was issued to him with respect to life of respondent No.1. The original policy bond containing terms and conditions of the contract was admittedly received by respondent No.1 and receipt of policy documents containing the terms and conditions of the contract of insurance was never disputed by respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 had an option to review the terms and conditions of the policy and in case of being dissatisfied with any of the terms and conditions to return the same within 15 days of the receipt of the policy document. There was a free-look period to cancel the policy by giving written notice of cancellation to the petitioners along with return of the policy documents. As per schedule of the said policy bond, half-yearly premiums @ Rs. 50,000/- was stipulated to be paid by respondent No.1 without any obligation on the company to issue notices for reminding payment of regular premium.

3. I need not narrate further facts, as the award of PLAPUS has been challenged only on the ground that PLAPUS has no jurisdiction to pass the impugned award. The award can only be passed if the parties agree before the PLAPUS. There is no power with the PLAPUS to decide the dispute on merits. The application of respondent No.1 was wrongly entertained by PLAPUS. Petitioners had appeared before PLAPUS and filed reply taking various objections to the effect that respondent No.1 being prudent and educated person himself proposed for the regular premium unit link vide proposal dated 19.05.2005 on the life of his minor son after fully understanding the features, charges, benefits and terms and conditions of the plan and opted for the same of his free will. The original policy bond containing terms and conditions of the insurance contract was admittedly received by respondent No.1 on 02.07.2005 but he never raised any protest with respect to terms and conditions of the policy and did not make any request for cancellation of the policy within the stipulated period of 15 days of receipt of the policy. He paid two half-yearly premiums in total as per schedule of the policy which clearly indicates that he was fully satisfied with the terms and conditions of the policy. Respondent No.1 failed to discharge his contractual obligations and did not pay regular half-yearly premiums due on 28.06.2006 knowing well that his policy would lapse. The policy on his life lapsed w.e.f. 28.06.2006 but respondent No.1 did not get the policy revived even within revival period of five years. Thus, the policy in question was terminated strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions of the policy, thus question of refund of amount did not arise.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that PLAPUS has no jurisdiction to decide the cases unless parties are agreeing for settlement of dispute by negotiation, conciliation, settlement or mediation. The procedure adopted by PLAPUS is illegal, arbitrary and bad in law and is not binding on the petitioners. The PLAPUS has no power, jurisdiction and authority to decide the dispute