Punjab-Haryana High Court
Subhash vs Branch Manager Pacl on 18 September, 2015
Author: Amit Rawal
Bench: Amit Rawal
ARCHANA ARORA
CR No. 6170 to 6174 and 6184 of 2015 1 2015.09.24 17:42
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
CR No. 6170 of 2015
Date of decision : September 18, 2015
Subhash
....... Petitioner
Versus
Branch Manager,PACL Limited
........ Respondent
CR No. 6171 of 2015
Radhe Sham
....... Petitioner
Versus
Branch Manager,PACL Limited
........ Respondent
CR No. 6172 of 2015
Rajkumari
....... Petitioner
Versus
Branch Manager,PACL Limited
........ Respondent
CR No. 6173 of 2015
Gurcharan Lal
....... Petitioner
Versus
Branch Manager,PACL Limited
........ Respondent
CR No. 6174 of 2015
Rajender
....... Petitioner
Versus
Branch Manager,PACL Limited
........ Respondent
CR No. 6170 to 6174 and 6184 of 2015 2
CR No. 6184 of 2015
Rajender
....... Petitioner
Versus
Branch Manager,PACL Limited
........ Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
Present:- Mr. S. S. Sahu, Advocate
for the petitioner.
****
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2. To be referred to the reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?
Amit Rawal, J (oral).
This order of mine shall dispose of Civil revision Nos. 6170 to 6174 and 6184 of 2015 as the question of law and fact involved is common.
The petitioners invoked the jurisdiction of Permanent Lok Adalat/Public Utility Services under Section 22-C of Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 for settlement of dispute viz-a- viz refund of policy. The policy admittedly contains clause 8 prescribing a resolution of dispute through arbitration. The aforementioned authority by taking into consideration clause 8 declined to entertain the petition being not maintainable. As per the terms and conditions of the policy the retired judicial officer is the arbitrator and the place of arbitration would be at Delhi.
The grievance of the petitioner can only be adjudicated by seeking reference to the Arbitrator. In case, the CR No. 6170 to 6174 and 6184 of 2015 3 respondent-PACL do not choose to appoint the arbitrator, the petitioner can, well, within the provisions of Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seek remedy by sending a notice and appointment of a different arbitrator.
I do not find any illegality and perversity in the aforementioned order.
With the aforementioned observations, the revision petitions stand dismissed.
(AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE September 18 , 2015 archana