Allahabad High Court
Manager Authorized Signatory And ... vs Shashank Pateriya on 2 December, 2020
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 43 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 42531 of 2018 Petitioner :- Manager Authorized Signatory And Another Respondent :- Shashank Pateriya Counsel for Petitioner :- Pawan Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Manish Kumar Pandey Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal,J.
1. None for the petitioners, even when the matter is taken up in the revised list. Sri Sumit Daga, learned counsel for the respondent is present.
2. This writ petition has been filed for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash/set aside the impugned judgment and award dated 23.10.2018 passed by Permanent Lok Adalat, Jhansi in P.L.A. Case No. 12 of 2018 titled as Shashank Pateriya vs. Manager Authorized Signatory, Royal Sundaram General Insurance Co. Ltd. and another, on the ground that as per one of the conditions of Carshield Private Car Package Policy, Annexure-2, under which vehicle of the respondent was ensured, there is a provision under conditions bearing condition no. 3, which reads as under:-
"The Company may at its own option repair, reinstate or replace the Private Car or part thereof and/or its accessories or may pay in cash the amount of the Loss or Damage and the liability of the Company shall not exceed:
(a) for Total Loss/Constructive Total Loss of the Private Car the Insured's Declared Value (IDV) of the Private Car (including accessories thereon) as specified in the Schedule less the value of the wreck.
(b) for partial losses, i.e., losses other than Total Loss/Constructive Total Loss of the Private Car - actual and reasonable costs of repair and/or replacement of parts lost/damaged subject to depreciation as per limits specified."
3. Placing reliance on such condition, it is submitted that since the condition no. 3 of the insurance policy is unambiguous, there was no occasion for the Permanent Lok Adalat to interpret its terms and condition and direct for payment of cash component of the value of the insured vehicle.
4. Sri Daga submits that the vehicle in question is a vehicle model description BEAT 1.0 LS, manufactured by General Motors. In the insurance policy itself, year of manufacture has been shown as 2014. It is submitted that company has winded up its operation in India and therefore, due to the act of manufacturer, this clause has been rendered redundant to a large extent, as far as, it deals with the issue of repair, reinstatement or replacement of a private car. It is further submitted that there is an option in this very clause for payment in cash equivalent of the amount of the loss or damage, subject to certain conditions provided under sub-clause (a) and (b). Therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned award passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat. In this backdrop, learned counsel for the respondent prays for dismissal of the writ petition.
5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties present, and going through the record, it is apparent that there is no error apparent on the face of the record in the award passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat. A perusal of the impugned award dated 23.10.2018 reveals that it is a by-party award. Therefore, on account of this award being a by-party award and taking into consideration the provisions under sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, that every award of the Lok Adalat shall be deemed to be a decree of a civil court or, as the case may be, an order ofany other court and where a compromise or settlement has been arrived at, by a Lok Adalat in a case referred to under sub-section (1) of Section 20, the court-fee paid in such case shall be refunded in the manner providedunder theCourt Fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870). Sub-section (2) of Section 21 of the Act of 1987 provides that every award made by a Lok Adalat shall be final and binding on all the parties to the dispute, and no appeal shall lieto any court against the award.
6. Section 22E of the Act of 1987 deals with the award of the Permanent Lok Adalat and provides that it shall be final and binding on all the parties. In view of such facts, on mere hyper technicality, a by-party award cannot be called in question in the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. Therefore, petition fails and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 2.12.2020 Vikram/-