The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of Sections 22-C and 22-E of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, and their application in settling disputes related to personal accident insurance.

JUDGMENT :

Rajiv Narain Raina, J.

Constable Devender Kumar died on 06.09.2011 in an accident run over by a train while crossing the railway line at Railway Station Ateli. He was serving in the Central Reserve Police Force and was attached to 51 Battalion at Hallomajra, Chandigarh. The accident happened during home leave from 02.09.2011 to 11.09.2011.

2. Deceased Devender Kumar was a subscriber to a bank account with the State Bank of India (SBI). SBI had obtained an insurance policy from the petitioning Insurance Company called 'Special Contingency Insurance Policy' issued from Divisional Office of the Company in Mumbai, which was valid for the period from 31.12.2010 to 30.12.2011. The policy covered personal accident risk to all the account holders.

3. Chennai Office of the petitioning Insurance Company received belatedly a letter dated 12.07.2013 for the first time from 51-Batallion, CRPF, Hallomajra, Chandigarh along with death certificate and post mortem report of the deceased informing the Insurance Company regarding the death of Devender Kumar. On receipt of letter, the petitioning Insurance Company at Mumbai by letter dated 16.12.2013 requested the claimant to furnish the requisite documents mentioned therein so as to enable the company to process the claim for insurance cover. Pursuant thereto, the necessary papers were furnished. These documents were processed and after examination, it was hazard that the deceased committed suicide by lying down on the railway track before the train pulling in at the platform. Since it was thought to be a case of suicide, the claim under the Personal Accident Insurance was held not admissible as per the terms and conditions of the policy. Clause 5 of the Exceptions under the Insurance Policy stipulated that the Insurance Company shall not be liable under the policy for payment of any claim in respect of death, injury or disablement of insured person arising "from intentional self injury, suicide or attempted suicide". Accordingly, the claim was repudiated by passing an order dated 01.01.2014 and conveying the same to the widow.

4. The widow-Savita Devi impugned the said order before the Permanent Lok Adalat, (Public Utility Services), Narnaul by filing an application under Section 22-C of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. Summons were issued to the Insurance Company on 26.03.2014 in order to persuade the parties to settle the dispute amicably. The Insurance Company entered appearance and filed its written statement vehemently contesting the application on the lines of the repudiation ground. The CRPF also filed separate written statement.

5. It is submitted by Mr. Paul S. Saini for the petitioner that when there was no possibility of any settlement and no settlement was arrived at, the Permanent Lok Adalat lost jurisdiction in the matter and ought to have relegated the parties to seek their remedy before the appropriate Forum, but contrary to the settled legal position, the authority proceeded illegally to decide the matter on merits vide order dated 10.07.2015 allowing the claim for Rs 3 lakhs. The order is challenged as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and against the provisions of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 contrary to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.

6. The Insurance Company has reached a final conclusion that the death of Devender Kumar was a case of suicide and that assumption became the basis of repudiation. What is relied upon by the petitioning Insurance Company is the opinion of the police and the inquest report, which according to them clearly established that the deceased had committed suicide. The Driver of the train, namely, Hukam Chand was summoned, but did not appear before the Permanent Lok Adalat to depose as the sole eye witness to the occurrence.

7. Mr. Saini relies on sub-section (8) of Section 22-C of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 to contend that where no compromise or settlement could be arrived at between the part