IMPORTANT POINT
The question of jurisdiction necessarily has to be raised before the Permanent Lok Adalat and the objector should insist upon a decision on this aspect at the initial stage itself, but if the objector despite taking an objection in the reply to the proceedings does not carry it forward beyond the initial stage and succumbs to the jurisdiction by participating in the proceedings, then the question of jurisdiction ought not to be permitted to be raised to defeat the validity of the proceedings in favour of an incumbent.

Mahesh Grover, J.—The petitioner is aggrieved by the award of the Permanent Lok Adalat vide which respondent No.2 has been granted the claim of insurance on account of the theft of vehicle. Its primary grievance is that the Permanent Lok Adalat did not have any jurisdiction to determine the issue before it on account of the constraint contained in section 22-C (8) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) which is extracted hereinbelow:

“22-C (8). Where the parties fail to reach at an agreement under sub-section (7), the Permanent Lok Adalat shall, ‘if the dispute does not relate to any offence’, decide the dispute.”

2. The contention advanced before this Court is that since the theft of vehicle is a cognizable offence, therefore, the Lok Adalat was precluded from exercising its jurisdiction in this regard. Reliance has been placed upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ajay Sinha and another, AIR 2008 SC 2398: (2008) 7 SCC 454, in particular, with regard to paras 37 to 39 of the judgment which are extracted hereinbelow:

“37. Section 22-C (1) contains certain provisos which limit the jurisdiction of the PLA. Given the principle of statutory interpretation stated earlier, these provisos, as a corollary, must be interpreted in an expansive manner.

38. What is important to note is that with respect of public utility services, the main purpose behind section 22-C (8) seems to be that “most of the petty cases which ought not to go in the regular Courts would be sett1ed in the pre-litigation stage itself.

39. Therefore, in the instant case, the terms “relating to” an “offence” appearing in Proviso 1 must be interpreted broadly, and as the determination before the Permanent Lok Adalat will involve the question as to whether or not an offence, which is non-compoundable in nature, has indeed been committed, this case falls outside the jurisdiction of the Permanent Lok Adalat.”

Reliance has also been placed upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in L.I.C. of India v. Suresh Kumar, (2011-4) 164 PLR 818 to contend that the Lok Adalat has no jurisdiction or the authority vested in it to decide the issue on merits.

3. The judgment relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in L.I.C. of India v. Suresh Kumar (supra) does not take into consideration the provisions of section 22-D of the Act which clearly lays down that while conducting conciliation proceedings or deciding a dispute on merit under the law, the Permanent Lok Adalat shall be guided by the principles of natural justice, objectivity, fair play, equity and other principles of natural justice, and shall not be bound by the Code of Civil Procedure. Section 22-D of the Act is extracted hereinbelow:

“22-D. Procedure of Permanent Lok Adalat.—The Permanent Lok Adalat shall, while conducting conciliation proceedings or deciding a dispute on merit under this Act, be guided by the principles of natural justice, objectivity, fair play, equity and other principles of natural justice, and shall not be bound by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 2008) and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872).”

4. Consequently, there is no light thrown by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on this issue and to the mind of this Court, section 22-D of the Act empowers the Lok Adalat to decide the issue on merits as well at the pre-litigative stage.

5. The question of jurisdiction necessarily has to be raised before the Permanent Lok Adalat and the objector should insist upon a decision on this aspect at the initial stage itself, but if the objector despite taking an objection in the reply to the proceedings does not carry it forward beyond the initial stage and succumbs to the jurisdiction by participating in the proceedings, then to the mind of this Court, the question of jurisdiction ought not to be permitted to be raised to defeat the validity of the proceedings in favour of an incumbent.

6. In Un