Jharkhand High Court
Dist.-Ranchi vs Sudhir Kumar Sharma on 14 May, 2024
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (C) No. 5891 of 2017
Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., having its Ranchi Divisional
Office at S.N. Ganguly Road, P.O.-Main Road, Ranchi, P.S.-Kotwali Town &
Dist.-Ranchi
.... Petitioner
Versus
1. Sudhir Kumar Sharma, son of late Indradev Thakur
2. Kanhaiya Kumar, son of Sudhir Kumar Sharma
both residing at & C/o Mishri Lal Yadav, Namkum Railway
Crossing, P.O. & P.S.-Namkum, Dist.-Ranchi (Respondent No.2
is minor hence is being represented by his father Respondent
No.1 as his next friend)
3. Bharat Bhushan, son of Khairati, residing at 372/61, Gali No.7,
Arjuna Nagare, Gurgaon, Dist.-Gurgaon (Haryana)
.... Respondents
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
.....
For the Petitioner : Mr. Alok Lal, Advocate For the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 : Mr. Nikhil Ranjan, Advocate : Mr. Praveen Tirkey, Advocate .....
By the Court:-
1. Heard the parties.
2. This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to issue of appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari to quash/set aside the order dated 24.06.2017 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Ranchi in PLA Case No. 1196/1197 of 2007.W.P. (C) No.5891 of 2017 1
3. Notice issued to the respondent no.3 has been served by way of substituted service of notice by publishing the contents of the notice in the daily newspaper 'Punjab Kesri'. So the substituted service of notice upon the respondent no.3 is sufficient. No one turns upon on behalf of the respondent no.3 in spite of repeated calls.
4. The brief fact of the case is that the respondent nos. 1 and 2 of this writ petition filed an application under Section 166 and 140 of M.V. Act claiming compensation on the ground that on 05.09.2006 the vehicle bearing registration no. HR 55B 4626 has dashed the respondent no.2 causing injury to him which resulted in amputation of his left leg. The accident was caused because of the rash and negligent driving of the driver. In-spite of service of notice, the respondent no.3 did not appear before the Permanent Lok Adalat and the case proceeded ex-parte against the respondent no.3.
5. The writ petitioner-insurance company appeared and filed written statement denying its liability and challenging the jurisdiction of the Permanent Lok Adalat to decide the claim under the Motor Vehicle Act. Inter alia it was pleaded by the insurance company that the driver of the truck in question was not having a valid driving licence but the insurance company did not adduce any evidence; to prove its said contention.
6. The Permanent Lok Adalat while deciding the dispute framed the terms of settlement only on the issue of quantum and in the W.P. (C) No.5891 of 2017 2 absence of owner-insured, such terms of settlement was not acceptable to the writ petitioner. The Permanent Lok Adalat adjudicated the claim under Section 22 © of the Legal Services Authority Act and formulated the terms only on the point of quantum ignoring the point of liability. It is then pleaded that the Permanent Lok Adalat wrongly decided the liability of the petitioner.
7. Relying upon the judgment of a coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of National Insurance Company vs. Kartik Gorain & Ors. in W.P. © No.1168 of 2009 dated 25.05.2009, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that therein it has been observed by the coordinate Bench of this Court that Permanent Lok Adalat cannot take the decision on merit.
8. Relying upon the judgment of another coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Laxmi Narayan Mishra & Anr. in W.P. © No.6219 of 2016 dated 07.02.2023, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that therein the coordinate Bench relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Canara Bank vs. G.S. Jayarama reported in (2022) 7 SCC 776 wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India enumerated the step by step procedure to be undertaken under the provisions of Section 22 C of Permanent Lok Adalat while dealing with the mandatory nature of conciliation proceedings, paragraph no. 34 and 36 of which reads as under:-W.P. (C) No.5891 of 2017 3
"34. This issue is clearly resolved from a bare reading of Section 22-C. Section 22-C provides a step-by-step scheme on how a matter is to proceed before the Permanent Lok Adalat. The first step is the filing of the application which ousts the jurisdiction of other civil courts, in accordance with sub-sections (1) and (2). The second step is the parties filing requisite submissions and documents before the Permanent Lok Adalat, in accordance with sub-section (3). On the completion of the third step to its satisfaction, the Permanent Lok Adalat can move to the fourth step of attempting conciliation between the parties, in accordance with sub-sections (4), (5) and (6). Subsequently, in the fifth step in accordance with sub- section (7), the Permanent Lok Adalat has to draw up terms of settlement on the basis of the conciliation proceedings, and propose them to the parties. If the parties agree, the Permanent Lok Adalat has to pass an award on the basis of the agreed upon terms of settlement. Only if the parties fail to reach an agreement on the fifth step, can the Permanent Lok Adalat proceed to the final step and decide the dispute on its merits."
"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) imposes a duty upon the party present before the Permanent Lok Adalat to cooperate in good faith and assist the Permanent Lok Adalat. Thereafter, the Permanent Lok Adalat, based on the materials before it, shall propose terms of settlement and communicate them to both parties, regardless of whether they participated in the proceedings. If the party present before the Permanent Lok Adalat does not agree or if the absent party does W.P. (C) No.5891 of 2017 4 not respond in a sufficient period of time, only then can the Permanent Lok Adalat adjudicate the dispute on its merits under Section 22-C(8). Keeping in mind the principles enshrined in Section 22-D, the Permanent Lok Adalat shall once again notify the absent party of its decision to adjudicate the dispute on its merits, in case it wishes to join the proceedings at that stage."
and submits that as the terms of settlement was not forwarded to the owner of the vehicle, the coordinate Bench held that the steps taken by the Permanent Lok Adalat to decide the case on merit is not sustainable in the eyes of law on account of non-adherence of the step by step procedure and set aside the order passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relied upon the judgment of a coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of M/s Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Bodya Oraon reported in 2017 0 Supreme (Jhk) 490, wherein, the coordinate Bench quashed the set aside the award passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat for the said award being passed without observing the requirement of Section 22C (7) of the Legal Services Authority Act.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner further relied upon the judgment of a coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Bishwanath Prasad vs. Ashok Kumar Dubey & Ors. reported in 2013 2 JCR 630 decided on 10.01.2013 wherein as it appeared from the impugned award as well as the statement on record that the Permanent Lok Adalat has not framed any terms of settlement and offered it to the parties to arrive at compromise or agreed settlement, in a matter, which was seriously contested by the W.P. (C) No.5891 of 2017 5 petitioner on merit, the coordinate Bench set aside the order passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Pappu & Ors. vs. Vinod Kumar Lamba & Anr. reported in (2018) 3 SCC 208. It is lastly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the prayer as made in this writ petition be allowed.
12. Learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer to quash the impugned award. Relying upon the judgment of a coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of The Chairman-cum-Managing Director, National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. vs. Kisha Devi & Ors. in W.P. © No.6066 of 2010, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 that the coordinate Bench relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Interglobe Aviation Limited vs. N. Satchidanand reported in (2011) 7 SCC 463, paragraph no.27 of which reads as under:-
"27. The nature of proceedings before the Permanent Lok Adalat is initially a conciliation which is nonadjudicatory in nature. Only if the parties fail to reach an agreement by conciliation, the Permanent Lok Adalat mutates into an adjudicatory body, by deciding the dispute. In short, the procedure adopted by the Permanent Lok Adalat is what is popularly known as "CON-ARB" (that is, "conciliation-cum-arbitration") in the United States, where the parties can approach a neutral third party or authority for conciliation and if the conciliation fails, authorize such neutral third party or authority to decide the dispute itself, such decision being final and binding. The concept of "CON-ARB" before a Permanent Lok Adalat is completely different from the concept of judicial W.P. (C) No.5891 of 2017 6 adjudication by the courts governed by the code of Civil Procedure. The Permanent Lok Adalat not being a "court", the provision in the contract relating to exclusivity of jurisdiction of courts at Delhi will not apply."
as also the case of Bar Council of India vs. Union of India reported in (2012) 8 SCC 243, paragraph no.26 of which reads as under:-
"26. It is necessary to bear in mind that the disputes relating to public utility services have been entrusted to Permanent Lok Adalats only if the process of conciliation and settlement fails. The emphasis is on settlement in respect of disputes concerning public utility services through the medium of Permanent Lok Adalat. It is for this reason that sub-section (1) of Section 22-C states in no unambiguous terms that any party to a dispute may before the dispute is brought before any court make an application to the Permanent Lok Adalat for settlement of dispute. Thus, settlement of dispute between the parties in matters of public utility services is the main theme. However, where despite the endeavours and efforts of the Permanent Lok Adalat the settlement between the parties is not through and the parties are required to have their dispute determined and adjudicated, to avoid delay in adjudication of disputes relating to public utility services, Parliament has intervened and conferred power of adjudication upon the Permanent Lok Adalat. "27. Can the power conferred on Permanent Lok Adalats to adjudicate the disputes between the parties concerning public utility service up to 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 W.P. (C) No.5891 of 2017 7 matters if 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."
Wherein the coordinate Bench while considering the facts of that case, observed that since the Permanent Lok Adalat has decided the dispute on merit; when the conciliation and settlement between the parties failed therefore, the Permanent Lok Adalat rightly exercised its jurisdiction and dismissed the writ petition.
13. Hence, it is submitted that this writ petition being without any merit be dismissed.
14. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, the undisputed fact remains that unlike the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner; so far as adjudicatory role of the Permanent Lok Adalat and as to whether it has followed the step by step procedure as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Canara Bank vs. G.S. Jayarama (supra) is concerned, it is pertinent to mention here that it is the admitted case of the writ petitioner; as has categorically been mentioned in paragraph no.25 of the writ petition itself; that terms of settlement was formulated by the PLA but the only grievance of the petitioner is that the same was confined only to the quantum. So undisputedly, this is not a case where the term of settlement was not formulated. Nowhere, it has been averred by the petitioner that the term of settlement was not sent to the parties nor it is the case of the writ petitioner that step by step procedure was not W.P. (C) No.5891 of 2017 8 followed by the Permanent Lok Adalat before going for adjudication and passing the award. There is absolutely no averment in this respect; in the writ petition.
15. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that in the absence of any specific pleading or proof furnished by the writ petitioner, that Permanent Lok Adalat has not followed the step by step procedure, the facts of this case being different from the facts of the cases of the coordinate Benches, relied upon by the petitioner, as already indicated above in this Judgment, this Court is of the considered view, that this is not a case where the impugned award is to be set aside for not following the step by step procedure, as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Canara Bank vs. G.S. Jayarama (supra).
16. So far as the contention of the petitioner that the Permanent Lok Adalat has arrived at a wrong conclusion regarding the point no. VI formulated by it, to the effect that the writ petitioner-insurance company has failed to prove that there is violation of the terms and condition of the policy by the owner of the vehicle is concerned, it is a settled principle of law as has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Central Council For Research In Ayurvedic Sciences & Anr. Vs. Bikartan Das & Ors. reported in 2023 INSC 733, paragraph 53 and 77 of which reads as under:
53. Relying on T.C. Basappa (supra), the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Hari Vishnu Kamath (supra), laid down the following propositions as well established:W.P. (C) No.5891 of 2017 9
"(1) Certiorari will be issued for correcting errors of jurisdiction, as when an inferior court or tribunal acts without jurisdiction or in excess of it, or fails to exercise it. (2) Certiorari will also be issued when the court or tribunal acts illegally in the exercise of its undoubted jurisdiction, as when it decides without giving an opportunity to the parties to be heard, or violates the principles of natural justice. (3) The court issuing a writ of certiorari acts in exercise of a supervisory and not appellate jurisdiction. One consequence of this is that the court will not review findings of fact reached by the inferior court or tribunal, even if they be erroneous."
77. It being open to the tribunals to come to one or the other conclusion on the materials before them, it cannot by any means be said that the decisions are incorrect so as to attract the extraordinary jurisdiction for interference by a writ of certiorari. In a King's Bench decision in R. v. Brighton and Area Rent Tribunal, (1950) 1 All England Reporter 946, Lord Goddard, CJ. observed that: "... As the tribunal had observed all the formalities of the Act, had offended against none of its provisions or against the regulations made under it, there was no ground for holding that the tribunal's determination was not in accordance with law, and, therefore, the motions for certiorari and mandamus should be refused". The purpose of certiorari, as we understand, is only to confine the inferior tribunals within their jurisdiction, so as to avoid the irregular exercise, or the non-exercise or the illegal assumption of it and not to correct errors of finding of fact or interpretation of law committed by them in the exercise of powers vested in them under the statute. The accepted rule is that where a Court has jurisdiction it has a right to decide every question which crops up in the case and whether its decision is correct or otherwise, it is bound to stand until reversed by a competent Court. This Court in G. Veerappa Pillai v. Messrs Raman and Raman Ltd. Kumbakonam, Tanjore District and Others, (1952) 1 SCC 334 observed: "26. Such writs as are referred to in Article 226 are obviously intended to enable the High Court to issue them in grave cases 61where the subordinate tribunals or bodies or officers act wholly without jurisdiction, or in excess of it, or in violation of the principles of natural justice, or refuse to exercise a jurisdiction vested in them, or there is an error apparent on the face of the record, and such act, omission, error, or excess has resulted in manifest injustice. However extensive the jurisdiction may be, it seems to us that it is not so wide or large as to enable the High Court to convert itself into a court of appeal and examine for itself the correctness of the decision impugned and decide what is the proper view to be taken or the order to be made." (Emphasis supplied) W.P. (C) No.5891 of 2017 10 that the law is well settled that the court issuing a writ of certiorari acts in exercise of a supervisory and not appellate jurisdiction. One consequence of the same is that the court will not review findings of fact reached by the inferior court or tribunal, even if they be erroneous.
17. Now coming to the facts of the case, in the award itself the Permanent Lok Adalat has, in no uncertain manner, mentioned that the opposite parties has not adduce any evidence to prove that the driver of the truck in question was not having a valid driving licence. On the other hand, from the Ext. X/36, it appears that in the charge-sheeted submitted by the police after the investigation of the connected criminal case it has been mentioned by the police that the driver was having driving licence bearing no. 13901/89 valid to 12.09.2005 to 11.01.2009 and he was authorized to drive HMV. Thus, as on such materials on the record, as the Permanent Lok Adalat arrived at the conclusion that the writ petitioner has failed to prove any violation in terms and condition of the policy, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a case where in exercise of jurisdiction for the purpose of issuing of writ of certiorari, such finding of fact of the Permanent Lok Adalat is to be set aside.
18. In view of the discussions made above, as petitioner has failed to establish any illegality having been committed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, in passing the impugned award, there is no justification for this court to issue any writ of certiorari for setting W.P. (C) No.5891 of 2017 11 aside the said award. Thus, this writ petition being without any merit is dismissed.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 14th May, 2024 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/-
W.P. (C) No.5891 of 2017 12