Jharkhand High Court
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Through ... vs Vijay Kumar Sharma, Gita Sharma, Rashmi ... on 10 May, 2007
Equivalent citations: AIR2008JHAR14, [2007(3)JCR335(JHR)], AIR 2008 JHARKHAND 14, 2008 (2) ABR (NOC) 199 (JHAR.) = AIR 2008 JHARKHAND 14, 2007 A I H C 3631, 2007 (3) AIR JHAR R 422, (2008) 2 TAC 65, (2007) 4 ACC 398, (2009) 1 ACJ 403, (2007) 2 JLJR 644
Author: Ramesh Kumar Merathia
Bench: Ramesh Kumar Merathia
JUDGMENT Ramesh Kumar Merathia, J.
1. Heard the parties for final disposal.
2. The judgment dated 16.9.2006 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Ranchi has been challenged in this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
3. Mr. Alok Lal, appearing for the petitioner Insurance Company submitted as follows:
Permanent Lok Adalat had no jurisdiction to decide this case in which the Insurance Company disputed the claim. In support of this contention, he relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court- State of Punjab v. Phulan Rani and State of Punjab v. Ganpat Raj 2006 AIR SCW 4585.
The contract of insurance was only between the Insurance Company and the insurer and, therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay third party claim raised by the respondents and the same will not come in the "insurance service" as defined under 22A(b)(vi) of "public utility service" under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (for short "the Act"). The owner, driver and insurer of the standing truck with which the Car in question dashed are also liable, but they were not made parties.
4. Mr. Ashutosh Anand, appearing for respondents No. 1 to 3 submitted as follows:
The said judgments are not applicable in the present case as they relate to the scope of Lok Adalat constituted under Section 19 of the Act, whereas under Section 22C(8) of the Act, powers have been given to Permanent Lok Adalat to decide the dispute where the parties fail to reach an agreement. Referring to the written statement of the Insurance Company filed before the Lok Adalat, he submitted that the Insurance Company simply tried to shift onus on the respondents-claimants, whereas it was it's duty to cooperate in good faith with the permanent Lok Adalat in conciliation of the dispute and to produce the evidence and other related documents before it as required under Section 22C(6) of the act.
He relied on the order dated 11.5.2006 passed in W.P. (C) No. 1102 of 2006 (United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mahanand Rawani and Anr.) and submitted that in the said case also, it was contended that Permanent Lok Adalat has no jurisdiction to entertain the application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and to decide the motor accident claim cases for grant of compensation, but the said writ petition was dismissed holding that in the Permanent Lok Adalat, the matters relating to accident claim can be filed and the Permanent Lok Adalat has jurisdiction to decide the case. He further submitted that the said order was confirmed by the Division Bench on 26.3.2007 in L.P.A. No. 281 of 2006 upholding the view of the learned Single Judge.
He further submitted that the Insurance Company having paid the own damage claim of the vehicle, is bound to pay the third party claim which is also included in the insurance policy.
Contradicting the argument of Mr. Alok Lal, that the owner, driver and the insurer of the standing truck were not made parties, he submitted that firstly no such ground was taken by the Insurance Company before the Permanent Lok Adalat. Moreover, referring to the Division Bench judgment of Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Smt. Parveen Juneja 2002 (2) T.A.C. 163 (P. & H.), he submitted that this is not a case of contributory negligence. The deceased was a passenger in the vehicle and he was not driving the Car. This is not a case of apportionment. This is a case of composite negligence. The claim cannot be defeated on the ground that the owner, driver and insurer of the standing truck, were not made parties by the claimants. In support of such argument, he further drew analogy from the concluding portion of paragraph 6 of the judgment in Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Laxman Iyer and Anr. . He also relied on the Full Bench judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Sushila Bhadoriya and Ors. v. M.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Anr. 2005 (1) T.A.G 981 (M.P.) and the Division Bench judgment of Delhi High Court in1 Om Wati and Ors. v. Mohd. Din and Ors. 2001 (2) T.A.C. 665 (Del.).
5. The respondents claimed compensation against the death of the deceased Vikrant Kumar who was passenger in the Car which dashed with a standing truck. The judgments relied by Mr. Alok Lal are about the scope of Sections 19 and 20 of the Act and are of no help to him in view of the specific provisions contained in Section 22C of the Act with regard to Permanent Lok Adalat. Moreover in view of the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 11.5.2006 in W.P. (C) No. 1102 of 2006 (Supra) which was affirmed by the Division Bench on 26.3.2007 in L.P.A. No. 281 of 2006 (Supra), the contention of Mr. Alok Lal about the jurisdiction of Permanent Lok Adalat cannot be accepted. Further in view of the aforesaid judgments, it has to be held that this is a case of composite negligence and not a contributory negligence. The claim cannot be defeated on the ground that that the owner, driver and insurer of the standing truck were not made parties, by the claimants before the Permanent Lok Adalat. Moreover, the Insurance Company-petitioner cannot escape from it's liability to pay the claim to the third party respondents saying that the insurance service will not include the third party claim, as such claim is part of such service/policy.
6. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed. However, no costs.