Punjab-Haryana High Court
Icici Lombard General Insurance Co.Ltd vs Permanent Lok Adalat on 6 July, 2012
Author: Mahesh Grover
Bench: Mahesh Grover
C.W.P. No.12562 of 2012 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
C.W.P. No.12562 of 2012 (O&M)
DATE OF DECISION : 6.7.2012
ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co.Ltd. PETITIONER
VERSUS
Permanent Lok Adalat, Ferozepur and others RESPONDENTS
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER
Present:- Shri Rajbir Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
MAHESH GROVER, J.
The petitioner is aggrieved by the award of the Permanent Lok Adalat vide which respondent No.2 has been granted the claim of insurance on account of the theft of vehicle. Its primary grievance is that the Permanent Lok Adalat did not have any jurisdiction to determine the issue before it on account of the constraint contained in Section 22(c)(8) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) which is extracted here below :-
"22-C(8) Where the parties fail to reach at an agreement under sub-section (7), the Permanent Lok Adalat shall, 'if the C.W.P. No.12562 of 2012 -2- dispute does not relate to any offence', decide the dispute."
The contention advanced before this Court is that since the theft of vehicle is a cognizable offence, therefore, the Lok Adalat was precluded from exercising its jurisdiction in this regard. Reliance has been placed upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in United India Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Ajay Sinha and another 2009(1) R.C.R. (Civil) 726, in particular, with regard to paras 37 to 39 of the judgment which are extracted here below :-
"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 of the Permanent Lok Adalat."
Reliance has also been placed upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in LIC of India v. Suresh Kumar P.L.R. (2011-4) 818, to contend that the Lok Adalat has no jurisdiction or the authority vested in it to C.W.P. No.12562 of 2012 -3- decide the issue on merits.
The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in LIC of India v. Suresh Kumar (supra) does not take into consideration the provisions of Section 22-D of the Act which clearly lays down that while conducting conciliation proceedings or deciding a dispute on merit under the law, the Permanent Lok Adalat shall be guided by the principles of natural justice, objectivity, fair play, equity and other principles of natural justice, and shall not be bound by the Code of Civil Procedure. Section 22-D of the Act is extracted here below :-
"22-D. Procedure of Permanent Lok Adalat.- The Permanent Lok Adalat shall, while conducting conciliation proceedings or deciding a dispute on merit under this Act, be guided by the principles of natural justice, objectivity, fair play, equity and other principles of natural justice, and shall not be bound by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 2008) and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872)."
Consequently, there is no light thrown by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on this issue and to the mind of this Court, Section 22-D of the Act empowers the Lok Adalat to decide the issue on merits as well at the pre-litigative stage.
The question of jurisdiction necessarily has to be raised before the Permanent Lok Adalat and the objector should insist upon a decision on this aspect at the initial stage itself, but if the objector despite taking an objection in the reply to the proceedings does not carry it forward beyond the initial stage and succumbs to the jurisdiction by participating in the proceedings, then to the mind of this Court, the question of jurisdiction ought not to be permitted to be raised to defeat the validity of the proceedings in favour of an incumbent. C.W.P. No.12562 of 2012 -4-
In United India Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Ajay Sinha and another (supra), the question of jurisdiction had been raised and answered by the Permanent Lok Adalat and it is in this context that the aforesaid observations were made. In the instant case, however, no such insistence was shown by the petitioner.
Consequently, the plea that the Permanent Lok Adalat did not have the jurisdiction to decide the issue, is negated.
Coming to the next question that since the claim for theft of vehicle is an offence and hence, in terms of Section 22(c)(8) of the Act, the Permanent Lok Adalat could not adjudicate such an issue, I am of the opinion that this question also has to be negated. The Hon'ble Supreme Court's observations in United India Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Ajay Sinha and another (supra) emanated from the facts where the theft was disputed, whereas in the instant case, even though the petitioner has taken a stand that the theft is disputed, but there is material on record to show that the F.I.R. was registered and the police investigated the matter till October, 2011 and failed to trace out the vehicle filing a report to that effect. This is a sufficient indicator of the factum of theft of the vehicle and the Permanent Lok Adalat was right in taking note of this fact. The petitioner who disputed the factum of theft except for pleading a delay of more than a month in lodging the F.I.R., could not show anything else from where it could be inferred that the grievance of the claimant was unfounded. There needs to be a distinction between a matter involving offence as a primary ingredient so as to divest a Permanent Lok Adalat of its jurisdiction. The claim of the respondent for insurance is indeed dependent upon theft, but not dependent to that extent of culmination of the proceedings emanating from the lodging of the F.I.R. till the conviction. To establish a claim of insurance, it is sufficient that there should be a valid F.I.R. with supportive follow up action which in the instant case, is the cancellation C.W.P. No.12562 of 2012 -5- report submitted by the police on 16.10.2011. This ought to have been sufficient for the petitioner to release the claim of the respondent. Once the F.I.R. and the cancellation report is on record, this is a sufficient acknowledgment and admission of the theft which cannot be repudiated by the Insurance Company by merely taking up a plea disputing the factum of theft. The observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in United India Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Ajay Sinha and another (supra) are thus not attracted to the facts of this case, as in the case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the the theft was disputed and there was no material to suggest that the vehicle had been stolen as against the facts of this case, where there is an F.I.R. and a cancellation report. Besides, in para-40 of the judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as follows :-
"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-C of the Act.
The Permanent Lok Adalat 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 emphasize 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 question, therefore, is still wide and open.
For the the reasons which have been stated above, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned award of the Permanent Lok Adalat. C.W.P. No.12562 of 2012 -6-
Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed.
(MAHESH GROVER)
July 6, 2012 JUDGE
GD
WHETHER TO BE REFERRED TO REPORTER? YES/NO