Punjab-Haryana High Court
Reliance Life Insurance Company ... vs Prem And Other on 20 November, 2019
Author: Rajiv Narain Raina
Bench: Rajiv Narain Raina
CWP No. 6123 of 2016 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 6123 of 2016
Date of Decision: 20.11.2019
Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd.
...Petitioner
Vs.
Prem and another
...Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA
Present: Mr. Deepak Girotra, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Sanskar Kundu, Advocate
for the applicant/respondent No.1.
RAJIV NARAIN RAINA, J.
CM-17156-2019 CM is allowed as prayed for.
CWP-6123-2016
1. This petition arises from an order of the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Jind accepting the insurance claim of the respondent, husband of the deceased insured, by awarding him Rs 3.3 Lakhs.
2. Parties have been heard at considerable length and the file perused with their assistance.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has been unable to show that the claim for insurance cover on the death of Late Lilam wife of Prem resident of VPO Dharam Kheri, Tehsil Hansi, District Hissar was 1 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 22-12-2019 12:14:43 ::: CWP No. 6123 of 2016 2 not genuine. The company has tried hard to try and connect the death with cancer arguing that it was pre-existing disease in late Lilam even before she purchased the insurance policy cover.
4. There is not a shred of dependable evidence on record pointed out by Mr. Girotra appearing for the Insurance Company to establish the causal connection between the death and the disease being pre-existing i.e. prior to the contract of insurance. No doubt, Lilam died of cancer a year after the policy was purchased. No investigation of the circumstances was done by the Insurance Company surrounding the state of health at the time of policy and the death of the insured on 04.01.2013. The Insurance cover was bought on 31.01.2012. They must have done a health check through their accredited medical doctors before entering into the insurance contract and accepting the premium on the policy.
5. The petitioner has tried to make a story drum-beating on cancer to deny the claim without any material on record to substantiate it, even assuming for sake of argument that Lilam was a cancer patient at the time of signing the insurance contract. There is no medical evidence to substantiate the plea notwithstanding that cancer was the determined cause of death in the hospital record. How suddenly or slowly cancer spreads in the body part of medical science. Claims for insurance cannot be so easily repudiated on the whims and fancies of the insurer without tangible and trustworthy material in hand. I would, 2 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 22-12-2019 12:14:44 ::: CWP No. 6123 of 2016 3 therefore, not consider an argument warranting interfering with the award of the Permanent Lok Adalat ("PLA") directing the petitioner to pay the insurance claim to the family of the deceased.
6. By keeping all the technicalities of the case aside as sought to be raised by counsel strenuously arguing that the PLA exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 22-C of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (for short the 'Act') and exercised it with material irregularity in passing an order on the merits of the case without attempting to conciliate and thereafter record existence of (i) element of settlement
(ii) acceptable to the parties and then (iii) formulate the terms of possible settlement, [S.22-C (7)]and lastly (4) if they fail to reach at an agreement then to decide the dispute provided it does not relate to any offence,[S.22-C (8)]. Counsel contends that stage (iii) when departed from would render the procedure and consequently the award bad in law inasmuch as the mandatory statutory procedure laid down in Section 22-C for transition from attempting settlement to adjudication on merits was ignored. The contention of the petitioner that Section 22- C (7) of the Act was breached, since there is nothing in writing by the PLA that the element of settlement was possible and then proceeding to formulate the same, by a separate order, is an argument contrary to record and the law as would be presently discussed in the course of the order.
7. Firstly, in order to appreciate the contention and whether it 3 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 22-12-2019 12:14:44 ::: CWP No. 6123 of 2016 4 should hold sway sufficient to set aside the award and why this court is persuaded by the respondent to hold to the contrary, a look at Section 22-C of the Act would be helpful. The provision of law reads:
"22C. Cognizance of cases by Permanent Lok Adalat. - (1) Any party to a dispute may, before the dispute is brought before any court, make an application to the Permanent Lok Adalat for the settlement of dispute: Provided that the Permanent Lok Adalat shall not have jurisdiction in respect of any matter relating to an offence not compoundable under any law: Provided further that the Permanent Lok Adalat shall also not have jurisdiction in the matter where the value of the property in dispute exceeds ten lakh rupees: Provided also that the Central Government, may, by notification, increase the limit of ten lakh rupees specified in the second proviso in consultation with the Central Authority.
(2) After an application is made under sub-section (1) to the Permanent Lok Adalat, no party to that application shall invoke jurisdiction of any court in the same dispute.
(3) Where an application is made to a Permanent Lok Adalat under sub-section (1), it--
(a) shall direct each party to the application to file before it a written statement, stating therein the facts and nature of dispute under the application 3 of 8 points or issues in such dispute and grounds relied in support of, or in opposition to, such points or issues, as the case may be, and such party may supplement such statement with any document and other evidence which such party deems appropriate in proof of such facts and grounds and shall send a copy of such statement together with a copy of such document and other evidence, if any, to each of the parties to the application;
(b) may require any party to the application to file additional statement before it at any stage of the conciliation proceedings;
(c) shall communicate any document or statement received by it from any party to the application to the other party, to enable such other party to present reply thereto.
4 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 22-12-2019 12:14:44 ::: CWP No. 6123 of 2016 5 (4) When statement, additional statement and reply, if any, have been filed under sub-section (3), to the satisfaction of the Permanent Lok Adalat, it shall conduct conciliation proceedings between the parties to the application in such manner as it thinks appropriate taking into account the circumstances of the dispute.
(5) The Permanent Lok Adalat shall, during conduct of conciliation proceedings under sub-section (4), assist the parties in their attempt to reach an amicable settlement of the dispute in an independent and impartial manner.
(6) It shall be the duty of every party to the application to cooperate in good faith with the Permanent Lok Adalat in conciliation of the dispute relating to the application and to comply with the direction of the Permanent Lok Adalat to produce evidence and other related documents before it.
(7) When a Permanent Lok Adalat, in the aforesaid conciliation proceedings, is of opinion that there exist elements of settlement in such proceedings which may be acceptable to the parties, it may formulate the terms of a possible settlement of the dispute and give to the parties concerned for their observations and in case the parties reach at an agreement on the settlement of the dispute, they shall sign the settlement agreement and the Permanent Lok Adalat shall pass an ward in terms thereof and furnish a copy of the same to each of the parties concerned.
(8) Where the parties fail to reach at an agreement under sub-section (7), the Permanent Lok Adalat shall, if the dispute does not relate to any offence, decide the dispute."
8. As against the written word in the orders dated 02.09.2015 and the final order dated 16.12.2015 there is backing by a categorical statement of Sh Anuj Goyal recorded in the order dated 02.09.2015 asking the Lok Adalat to decide the case on merits. Presence of agent is admitted. Statement was recorded. It is not the case of the petitioner exceeded his instructions or he was not authorized to make the 5 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 22-12-2019 12:14:44 ::: CWP No. 6123 of 2016 6 statement.
9. It is well-settled that any observations about what transpires in judicial proceedings and statements of parties when recorded in writing, those can be contradicted or refuted as one not made or made in the manner contrary to the statement recorded only by way of an affidavit sworn by the person present during the proceedings, presented before the same Judge/Member of the Forum who signed the statement and none else. Meaning thereby, that to succeed the petitioner had to get out of the statement of Anuj Goyal, General Manager of the petitioner company. The statement could be only undone by Goyal filing an affidavit before the same judges deposing therein that he had not made the statement or that it was wrongly recorded. No such thing happened. Hence, the petitioner is bound by the statement. To understand this, it is best to reproduce order dated 02.09.2015 in extenso. The order reads as follows:-
"As envisaged under Section 22C(4) of the Act, the conciliation proceedings were conducted between the parties to the application, taking into account the circumstances of the dispute. The parties were assisted in their attempt to reach an amicable settlement of the dispute, in an independent and impartial manner. The parties also cooperated in good faith with this Adalat in conciliation of the dispute. This Adalat formed the opinion that there existed elements of settlement which might be acceptable to the parties and thus, the terms of a possible settlement of the dispute were made known to the parties for their observations, but the parties had failed to reach an agreement under sub-section (7). Statement of Sh. Anuj Goyal, Branch Manager on behalf of the respondent recorded. So in view of Sec.22-C(8) of the Act, this Adalat was left with no other 6 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 22-12-2019 12:14:44 ::: CWP No. 6123 of 2016 7 option except to proceed further to decide the dispute on merit. Hence, case is adjourned to 30.09.2015 for filing of document, if any, and arguments." [Underlining for emphasis]
10. It may be recorded that this zimni order has a material bearing on the determination of the case in judicial review but was not placed on the original file by the petitioner and had to be brought on record by the respondent through CM No. 17156 of 2019 in order to strengthen his case.
11. The relevant observations of the Lok Adalat in the final order dated 16.12.2015 allowing the insurance claim is reproduced below:
"6. As envisaged under Section 22-C(4) of the Act, the conciliation proceedings were conducted between the parties to the application, taking into account the circumstances of the dispute. The parties were assisted in their attempt to reach an amicable settlement of the dispute, in an independent and impartial manner. The parties also cooperated in good faith with this Adalat in conciliation of the dispute. This Adalat formed the opinion that there existed elements of settlement which might be acceptable to the parties and thus, the terms of a possible settlement of the dispute were made known to the parties for their observations, but the parties had failed to reach an agreement under sub-section (7). Statement of Sh. Anuj Goyal, Branch Manager on behalf of the respondent recorded. So in view of Sec.22(8) of the Act, this Adalat was left with no other option except to proceed further to decide the dispute on merit.
7. xxx.
8. Despite several opportunities, no document was tendered by the counsel for the respondent in additional evidence after failing the conciliation proceedings.
9. xxx
10. The sole contention of the learned counsel for the respondent is that the life assured had obtained policy by suppression of material facts of the financial condition and had the respondent 7 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 22-12-2019 12:14:44 ::: CWP No. 6123 of 2016 8 being aware of the correct financial condition of the assured at the time of sending the proposal form, the policy could have not been issued to her. Therefore, the respondent had rightly repudiated the claim of the petitioner on the ground of suppression of material facts of financial condition vide letter dated 18.12.2013. Hence, in view of these circumstances, the petition of the petitioner is liable to be dismissed with costs."
12. In the circumstances, it seems a foregone conclusion, and apparently so, that no argument criticizing the procedure under Section 22-C or the statement of the General Manager was raised at the time of hearing. There is not even a whisper in the petition that the contents of paragraph No.10 of the final order are incorrectly recorded. The ground has not been taken in the petition. The petitioner will be deemed to have given up and surrendered the plea and, therefore, cannot be permitted to raise the issue for the first time before this court. In Harjinder Singh vs. Punjab State Warehousing Corporation, (2010) 3 SCC 192 the Supreme Court held that a new plea not taken in the tribunal a quo cannot be introduced for the first time in writ proceedings.
13. The statement of the Branch Manager of the petitioning company made on 02.09.2015, the day when the zimni order was passed and statement, has come on record after being called by this Court by the interim order dated 24.10.2019 asking the learned counsel for the petitioner to produce the statement of Anuj Goyal, Branch Manager of the petitioner company made consciously before the PLA, Jind asking for a decision on the merits of the dispute.
14. The statement is an insuperable hurdle for the petitioning 8 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 22-12-2019 12:14:44 ::: CWP No. 6123 of 2016 9 company to cross. The statement reads "stated that compromise cannot be effected. The case be decided on merits". If the petitioner had given a free hand to the PLA to decide the case on merits and it proceeded to do so, then the petitioner has to be held down to its own act and conduct and cannot be heard to shift its foot.
15. The statement was made much before the final order came. If the petitioner had any grievance about the statement they could have moved the PLA promptly with an application seeking leave to be discharged from statement for so and so reason but they did not take any such steps. Looking at the litigious strength of the petitioner, they could even have taken their grievance against an interlocutory order regarding the statement made by their authorized agent at the doors of a superior court complaining that the PLA was trampling over their rights or by pleading successfully that their agent was not authorized to make statement binding on the company or he had exceeded his instructions on the crucial date: 02.09.2015 but they did not do so and it is only now after the final order was passed that they have come complaining against the award of only Rs. 3,30,000/- in favour of the respondent- claimant arguing that the procedure in the Act was not followed.
16. Another aspect requiring consideration is whether the PLA had jurisdiction to decide the case on merits as the occurrence involved the offence of theft of motor vehicle. If sub-section (8) of Section 22-C of the Act is read in isolation it may suggest that the PLA loses 9 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 22-12-2019 12:14:44 ::: CWP No. 6123 of 2016 10 jurisdiction to decide the case on merits in case; "the dispute does not relate to any offence, decide the dispute" being the words used in the sub- section. Theft is an offence defined by Section 378 and punishable under Section 379 of the IPC inviting a sentence of up to 3 years or with fine. But if Section 22-C (8) of the Act is read together with Section 22-C (1) the prohibition is confined to non-compoundable offences, then, would the PLA be denuded of its authority to decide the case on merits? Answer is this: The legislative restriction is built by the first proviso in Section 22-C (1) spelling out the type of offences which fall within or outside the proviso. The elevant provision reads: "provided that the Permanent Lok Adalat shall not have jurisdiction in respect of any matter relating to an offence not compoundable under any law." The meaning is now manifest making the picture clear. The words "any offence" in Section 22-C (8) is controlled by the first proviso circumscribing the jurisdiction of the PLA to such offences as are compoundable. In cases of non-compoundable offences the PLA has to lay off its hands and thereby leave parties to other available remedies. Theft is a cognizable offence with power to police to arrest and is also non-bailable but it is a compoundable offence; Ss. 378 & 379 IPC. Accordingly, the PLA in the present case in its facts and circumstances had the jurisdiction to decide on merits without any inhibitions in the law.
17. I would, therefore, for the many reasons recorded be loathe to interfere in the matter in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The High Court does not sit in appeal over the work of Tribunals and forums akin to them constituted under statutory 10 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 22-12-2019 12:14:44 ::: CWP No. 6123 of 2016 11 enactments nor would it substitute one view in preference with another on the same material unless there is perversity, irrationality or arbitrariness found vitiating the order.
18. I do not find any of these averments in the impugned order justifying interference nor would I venture to upset the award on the issue of occupation and income of the deceased at the time of signing of contract of insurance as that has been discussed by the Tribunal and I have no reason to alter the reasoning.
19. At last, counsel for the petitioner relies on the judgment of Jharkhand High Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Arti Banerjee and others, 2011 (1) JLJR 610 and of this Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Rajesh Kumar and another, 2014 (1) PLR 511 but find they have no bearing on the facts of the case.
20. For the reasons assigned, this petition fails and is dismissed.
(RAJIV NARAIN RAINA)
20.11.2019 JUDGE
kv
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether reportable : Yes
11 of 11
::: Downloaded on - 22-12-2019 12:14:44 :::