An award of a Permanent Lok Adalat, being final, binding, and deemed a civil court decree under Section 22E of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, is not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 absent manifest arbitrariness, perversity, or violation of natural justice principles.

Judgment

1. The present writ petition has been filed, assailing the impugned order/award dated 12.06.2025 passed by the learned Permanent Lok Adalat, Jaipur Metropolitan-II. By way of the impugned order, the learned Permanent Lok Adalat allowed the application of the respondent-claimant and directed the petitioner Insurance Company to pay an additional sum of Rs. 5,75,000/- within a period of two months from the date of the order, along with Rs. 3,000/- towards litigation expenses.

2. In the instant matter, it is an admitted position on record that against the Personal Accident (PA) cover sum insured of Rs. 15,00,000/-, the petitioner-Insurance Company had previously disbursed an amount of Rs. 7,50,000/- to the respondent. The present challenge by the petitioner is restricted to the additional award of Rs. 5,75,000/-.

3. This Court upon hearing the contentions put forth by the learned counsel, and upon scanning the material available on record, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the instant matter, for the reasons noted hereinbelow:

3.1 That the scope of interference is minuscule and need to invoke the writ or extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court is limited. It is opined that in order to invoke such jurisdiction under constitutional provisions, warrants apparent malafides, arbitrariness and illegality. The said view is substantiated from the ratio encapsulated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Life Insurance Corpn. of India and ors. v. Asha Goel (Smt.) and another: (2001) 2 SCC 160, relevant extract from which is reproduced as under:

"10. Article 226 of the Constitution confers extraordinary jurisdiction on the High Court to issue high prerogative writs for enforcement of the fundamental rights or for any other purpose. It is wide and expansive. The Constitution does not place any fetter on exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction. It is left to the discretion of the High Court. Therefore, it cannot be laid down as a general proposition of law that in no case the High Court can entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution to enforce a claim under a life insurance policy. It is neither possible nor proper to enumerate exhaustively the circumstances in which such a claim can or cannot be enforced by filing a writ petition. The determination of the question depends on consideration of several factors like, whether a writ petitioner is merely attempting to enforce his/her contractual rights or the case raises important questions of law and constitutional issues, the nature of the dispute raised; the nature of inquiry necessary for determination of the dispute etc. The matter is to be considered in the facts and circumstances of each case. While the jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be denied altogether, courts must bear in mind the self imposed restriction consistently followed by High Courts all these years after the constitutional power came into existence in not entertaining writ petitions filed for enforcement of purely contractual rights and obligations which involve disputed questions of facts. The courts have consistently taken the view that in a case where for determination of the dispute raised, it is necessary to inquire into facts for determination of which it may become necessary to record oral evidence a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution, is not the appropriate forum. The position is also well settled that if the contract entered between the parties provide an alternate forum for resolution of disputes arising from the contract, then the parties should approach the forum agreed by them and the High Court in writ jurisdiction should not permit them to bypass the agreed