IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

W.P.(C) No. 6219 of 2016

National Insurance Co. Ltd. having its Divisional Office at S.N.

Ganguly Road, Ranchi, through A.K. Mohanty, Deputy Manager,

Jharkhand Legal Cell at Kutchery Road, Ranchi

…

…

Petitioner

Versus

1. Laxmi Narayan Mishra, S/o Sri Satya Deo Mishra, resident of

Namkum Road, Doranda, P.S. – Doranda, P.O. – Hinoo, District –

Ranchi

2. Basanti Devi, w/o Ashok Kumar Singh, resident of Kusai chowk,

P.O. – Hinoo, P.S. – Doranda, District – Ranchi

…

… Respondents

---

CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

---

For the Petitioner

: Mr. Alok Lal, Advocate

For the Resp. No.1

: Mr. K.K. Singh, Advocate

: Mr. S. Bhowmik, Advocate

For the Resp. No.2

: None

---

09/07.02.2023

Heard Mr. Alok Lal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

petitioner along with Mr. Santosh Kumar, Advocate.

2.

Mr. K.K. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no.1, the

claimant, is present.

3.

Nobody appears on behalf of the respondent no.2- the owner of the

vehicle , in spite of service of notice.

4.

This writ petition has been filed for the following relief:

“For quashing / setting aside of the order dated 23.06.2016 (Annexure – 1) passed by

the permanent Lok Adalat, Ranchi, in PLA Case No.2 and 3 of 2005 whereby and where

under the Permanent Lok Adalat, Ranchi, (hereinafter referred to as the Court below

for the sake of brevity) in exercise of its power under the Legal Services Authority Act,

1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has allowed the application filed by the

respondent no.1 u/s 166 of the M.V. Act directing the insurer to pay sum of

Rs.3,50,500/- on account of injury sustained by the respondent no.1 in an accident

caused by the Maruti Van insured with the petitioner.”

Arguments of the Petitioner

5.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned

order is perverse on account of the fact that the required procedure under

the provisions of Section 22 C of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987,

has not been followed.

6.

Learned counsel has submitted that para 1 of the impugned order

indicates that the notice was validly served upon the owner of the vehicle,

but he failed to appear and contest the case and hence the matter proceeded

ex parte against him. Learned counsel has further submitted that once the

2

party is not appearing before the permanent Lok Adalat, the only option

before the permanent Lok Adalat was to leave the parties to get their

dispute adjudicated through the tribunal. He submits that in absence of the

opposite party before permanent Lok Adalat, there could not have been any

proceedings for conciliation etc. and therefore, no award could have been

passed by the permanent Lok Adalat.

7.

Learned counsel has further submitted that even if it is held that

permanent Lok Adalat could have proceeded, then also the terms of

settlement should have been forwarded to the non-appearing owner of the

vehicle. He submits that from perusal of para 4 of the impugned order , it

appears that the terms of settlement was only forwarded to the insurance

company and the claimant but not to the owner of the vehicle and therefore,

otherwise also, the impugned order by which the Permanent Lok Adalat

proceeded to decide the case on merit, is not sustainable in the eyes of law

on account of serious procedural irregularity and consequent violation of

the provision of law governing the proceedings before Permanent Lok

Adalat.

8.

During the course of hearing, this Court has drawn the notice of the

learned counsel for the petitioner on the recent judgment passed by Hon'ble

Supreme Court reported in (2022) 7 SCC 776 (Canara Bank v. G.S.

Jayarama) particularly para 34 and 36 of the said judgment. In response,

learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that even in v