102 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 10.03.2026 Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited ….Petitioner vs.

Vajainty Mala and others ….Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Present: Mr. D.K.Prajapati, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Rishabh Gupta, Advocate, for the respondents ***

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL)

1. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of order dated 23.10.2019 (Annexure P-7) whereby it has been directed by Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Bathinda (‘PLA’) to pay a sum of Rs.5 Lakhs along with interest to respondents.

2. Mr. Satish Kumar, who was husband of respondent No.1 and father of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 passed away in a road accident on 06.10.2013. The respondents requested to the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.5 Lakhs as compensation as per insurance policy. The petitioner vide letter dated 13.02.2014 informed the respondents that Mr. Satish Kumar passed away within 30 days waiting period of the policy, thus, claim is not maintainable. The respondents approached Ombudsman at Chandigarh by way of complaint No.CHD-G-038-1415-0226. The Ombudsman vide order dated 08.12.2014 dismissed their claim on the ground that repudiation was justified in view of 30 days waiting period.

3. On 16.01.2024, the following order was passed: -

“ Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner prays for some time to assist this Court as regards the maintainability of the proceedings before the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services) as the respondent-applicant had preferred an application before the Insurance Ombudsman before approaching the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services) under Section 22-C. The mandate of The Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 being that the Forum of Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services) has to be approached before approaching any other Court as defined under Section 2(1)(aaa) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 which includes any other authority as well.

On request, adjourned to 06.05.2024.”

4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that it is factually correct that respondents approached Insurance Ombudsman, Chandigarh who passed order dated 08.12.2014 under the Redressal of Public Grievances Rules, 1998 and Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996.

5. Section 22C of Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 (for short “1987 Act”) provides that any party to a dispute may before the dispute is brought before any Court make an application to the PLA for the settlement of dispute. The expression ‘Court’ has been defined under Section 2(aaa) of 1987 Act. As per said Section, Court means a Civil, Criminal or Revenue Court and includes any tribunal or any other authority constituted under any law for the time being in force, to exercise judicial or quasi-judicial functions. Sections 22C and 2(aaa) of 1987 Act are reproduced as below:-

“22C Cognizance of cases by Permanent Lok Adalat.— (1) Any party to a dispute may, before the dispute is brought before any court, make an application to the Permanent Lok Adalat for the settlement of dispute:

Provided that the Permanent Lok Adalat shall not have jurisdiction in respect of any matter relating to an offence not compoundable under any law:

Provided further that the Permanent Lok Adalat shall also not have jurisdiction in the matter where the value of the property in dispute exceeds ten lakh rupees:

Provided also that the Central Government, may, by notification, increase the limit of ten lakh rupees specified in the second proviso in consultation with the Central Authority.

(2) After an application is made under sub-section (1) to the Permanent Lok Adalat, no party to that application shall invoke jurisdiction of any court in the same dispute.

(3) Where an application is made to a Permanent Lok Adalat under sub-section (1), it—

(a) shall direct each party to the application to file before it a