IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

(Civil Writ Jurisdiction)

W.P. (C) No. 3835 of 2009

….....

National Insurance Company Limited ….

..... Petitioner

Versus

Chanchal Kumari Pandey & Others

….

..... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO

(Through : Video Conferencing)

….........

For the Petitioner

: Mr. G.C. Jha, Advocate

For the Respondent No. 1

: Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate.

For the Respondent No. 6

: Mr. Alok Lal, Advocate.

........

14/29.09.2021.

Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. G.C. Jha, learned

counsel for the claimant, Mr. Sunil Kumar and learned counsel for

the New India Assurance Company Limited, Mr. Alok Lal.

The National Insurance Company Limited has challenged the

award dated 05.09.2008 passed by Permanent Lok Adalat in P.L.A.

Case No. 166/2007, whereby the Permanent Lok Adalat has awarded

compensation in favour of the claimant namely, Chanchal Kumari

Pandey, wife of Shiv Kumar Pandey and Smt. Shakuntala Devi,

mother of the Shiv Kumar Pandey, for the death of Shiv Kumar

Pandey, who died on 08.06.2006, in motor accident caused by

offending vehicle bearing registration no. HR-38A-1694 to the tune

of Rs. 6,47,000/- to be paid within 30 days of the order, failing which

the claimant is at liberty to recover and realise the same through the

process of law with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of order

and out of the said awarded amount, sum of Rs. 2,47,000/- will be

paid to mother of the deceased namely, Shakuntala Devi.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the

learned Permanent Lok Adalat has passed order and award, where

the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act is not applicable, as such, the

impugned order and award may be set aside.

Learned counsel, Mr. Sunil Kumar, appearing for the claimant

has submitted that in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court

in the case of Bar Council of India Vs. Union of India reported in

(2012) 8 SCC 243 (Para-27), adjudication by Permanent Lok Adalat

is valid and justified. Para-27 of the aforesaid judgment may

profitably be quoted hereunder:-

-2-

“27. Can the power conferred on Permanent Lok Adalats to

adjudicate the disputes between the parties concerning public

utility service upto a specific pecuniary limit, if they do not relate

to any offence, as provided under Section 22-C(8), be said to be

unconstitutional and irrational? We think not. It is settled law that

an authority empowered to adjudicate the disputes between the

parties and act as a tribunal may not necessarily have all the

trappings of the court. What is essential is that it must be a

creature of statute and should adjudicate the dispute between the

parties before it after giving reasonable opportunity to them

consistent with the principles of fair play and natural justice. It is

not a constitutional right of any person to have the dispute

adjudicated by means of a court only. Chapter VI-A has been

enacted to provide for an institutional mechanism, through the

establishment of Permanent Lok Adalats for settlement of

disputes concerning public utility service before the matter is

brought to the court and in the event of failure to reach any

settlement, empowering the Permanent Lok Adalat to adjudicate

such dispute if it does not relate to any offence.”

Learned counsel for the claimant has further submitted that the

accident took place in the year 2006 and the compensation amount is

just and fair, which may not be interfered otherwise under the Motor

Vehicles Act, this amount may go higher and since the claimant has

not preferred any appeal for enhancement, as such, this Court may

not interfere with the same considering it to be just and fair

compensation.

Considering the rival submissions of the parties, since the

adjudication by the Permanent Lok Adalat is legal and valid in view

of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of B