Punjab-Haryana High Court
Shri Ram General Insurance Company Ltd vs Permanent Lok Adalat And Another on 31 May, 2012
Author: Mahesh Grover
Bench: Mahesh Grover
CWP No.11350 of 2012 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.11350 of 2012 (O&M)
Decided on : 31-05-2011
Shri Ram General Insurance Company Ltd
....Petitioner
VERSUS
Permanent Lok Adalat and another
....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr. Rajbir Singh, Advocate for the petitioner MAHESH GROVER, J The petitioner has impugned the award of the Permanent Lok Adalat by which an amount of Rs.6,38,000/- has been awarded in favour of the respondent no.2 - insured.
The petitioner has stated that the Permanent Lok Adalat was precluded from entertaining the plea of respondent no.2 on the following grounds:-
i) that as per the policy the petitioner was to be intimated immediately regarding the theft of the vehicle but the intimation was given to the petitioner after more than 4 months of the theft.
ii) That there were disputed questions of fact involved.
iii)that the Lok Adalat did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the proceedings.
I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and I am of the opinion that in so far as the first grievance CWP No.11350 of 2012 (O&M) 2 is concerned, the same is mis-placed. The policy merely requires that intimation should be given immediately. The word immediately has not been defined to be limited to a particular period and considering the fact that when the theft was there, the first endeavour of the respondent was to lodge an FIR to trace out the vehicle. Therefore, a lapse of 3-4 months would not make any difference to defeat the claim of the respondent specially when the FIR has been registered and the untraced report has been given by the police.
Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ajay Sinha and another reported as 2009(1) RCR (Civil) held as under:-
"37. Section 22-C(1) contains certain Provisos which limit the jurisdiction of the PLA. Given the principle of statutory interpretation stated earlier, these Provisos, as a corollary, must be interpreted in an expansive manner.
38. What is important to note is that with respect of public utility services, the main purpose behind Section 22- C(8) seems to be that "most of the petty cases which ought not to go in the regular Courts would be settled in the pre- litigation stage itself."
39. Therefore, in the instant case, the terms "relating to" an "offence" appearing in Proviso 1 must be interpreted broadly, and as the determination before the Permanent Lok Adalat will involve the question as to whether or not an offence, which is non-compoundable in nature, has indeed been committed, this case falls outside the jurisdiction CWP No.11350 of 2012 (O&M) 3 of the Permanent Lok Adalat.
40. We must guard against construction of a statute which would confer such a wide power in the Permanent Lok Adalat having regard to sub-section (8) of Section 22-Cof the Act. The Permanent Lok Adalat must at the outset formulate the questions. We however, do not intend to lay down a law, as at present advised, that Permanent Lok Adalat would refuse to exercise its jurisdiction to entertain such cases but emphasise that it must exercise its power with due care and caution. It must not give an impression to any of the disputants that it from the very beginning has an adjudicatory role to play in relation to its jurisdiction without going into the statutory provisions and restrictions imposed thereunder." The factum of the theft of vehicle, registration of FIR and subsequent un-traced report given by the police is not in dispute and therefore, the plea that it involved disputed questions of fact is also mis- placed.
Lastly, the question of jurisdiction was never specifically raised before the Tribunal and even though some objection was taken in the reply submitted by the petitioner before the Lok Adalat yet no attempt was made to get the question of jurisdiction decided in the first instance by insisting upon such a decision. The petitioner participated in the proceedings before the Lok Adalat and adduced whatever material it had to in support of its plea. Consequently, it is erroneous to raise the plea of jurisdiction at this stage specially when the Permanent Lok Adalat ostensibly has been set up to decide the cases expeditiously in order to CWP No.11350 of 2012 (O&M) 4 bring succour to the aggrieved litigants who are primarily suffering on account of deficiency in service by public utility services. It would be travesty of justice if entire proceedings are over turned on the ground of jurisdiction in the absence of any such attempt being made to question such jurisdiction in the first available instance. In United India Insurance Co. Ltd. case (supra) the question of jurisdiction was dealt with by Lok Adalat at the first instance and this is not so in the present case.
No ground to interfere.
Hence, dismissed.
May 31, 2012 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge