IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision:09.02.2026 PNB METLIFE INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD ...PETITIONER VERSUS SUKH NARAIN AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL Present: Mr. Nitin Thatai, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Manu Loona, Advocate for respondent No.1.

Respondent No.3 already deleted from array of parties.

****

SUVIR SEHGAL, J.

1. Petitioner has assailed ex parte award dated 25.03.2022, Annexure P-1, passed by Permanent Lok Adalat, Public Utility Services, Fazilka (for short “Lok Adalat”).

2. Respondent No.1 approached the Lok Adalat by filing a petition under Section 22-C of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (for short “1987 Act”) alleging that he was induced into purchasing an insurance policy for a period of 100 years by giving an impression that policy is for 10 years. Respondent No.1 claims that he paid Rs.52,250/- by way of a premium through a cheque and a temporary receipt was issued to him on 29.06.2021. When he came to know of the deceit, he requested the petitioner vide email dated 09.07.2021 to cancel the policy and return the premium. It has been claimed that despite accepting the request for cancellation and submission of all the requisite documents to the insurance company, premium amount has not been refunded, forcing him to approach the Lok Adalat.

3. Notice of the petition was issued to the insurance company and the agent, but despite service, they did not appear before the Lok Adalat. Impugned award, Annexure P-1, has been passed by Lok Adalat, whereby petitioner has been directed to pay Rs.52,250/- to respondent No.1 alongwith interest besides compensation and cost.

4. Primary argument raised by Mr. Nitin Thatai, counsel for the petitioner, is that Lok Adalat has adjudicated the dispute without making any attempt to bring about a conciliation between the parties and provisions of

1987 Act have been breached.

5. Per contra, counsel for respondent No.1, who has filed a reply, asserts that petitioner deliberately did not appear before the Lok Adalat despite being served and was proceeded against ex parte. It is his argument that instant petition has been filed with the sole intention to harass the contesting respondent.

6. I have heard counsel for the parties and considered their respective submissions.

7. From a perusal of impugned award, it is evident that Lok Adalat has not made any effort to bring about a settlement between the parties as per the mandate of Section 22-C of 1987 Act. Lok Adalat gets the power to decide the dispute on merits only after the conciliation process between the parties does not fructify into a settlement. It is obligatory for the Lok Adalat to take recourse to the conciliation process even in case respondents have been proceeded against ex parte. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Canara Bank Vs. G.S. Jayarama (2022) 7 SCC 776. The relevant extract of judgment is reproduced hereunder:-

“36. The appellant's argument, however, is that if the opposite party does not appear before the Permanent Lok Adalat, it can dispense with the conciliation proceedings and straightaway adjudicate the dispute under Section 22-C(8). We are unable to accept this submission. Even if the opposite party does not appear, the Permanent Lok Adalat is still bound to follow the step-by-step procedure laid down by Section 22-C. Under Section 22-C(3), it would require the party before it to file their submissions and documents, and make the best efforts to communicate them to the opposite party for their response. If it is satisfied that no response is forthcoming from the absent opposite party, the Permanent Lok Adalat shall still attempt to settle the dispute through settlement under Section 22-C(4). It is important to remember that Section 22-C(5) imposes a duty upon the Permanent Lok Adalat to be independent and impartial in attempting to amicably settle the dispute, while Section 22-C(6)