Punjab-Haryana High Court
National Insurance Company Ltd vs Om Prakash And Others on 24 September, 2012
Author: L. N. Mittal
Bench: L. N. Mittal
C. R. No. 4291 of 2011 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Case No. : C. R. No. 4291 of 2011
Date of Decision : September 24, 2012
National Insurance Company Ltd. .... Petitioner
Vs.
Om Prakash and others .... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL
* * *
Present : Mr. Paul S. Saini, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Sandeep Jasuja, Advocate
for respondent no. 1.
None for respondent no. 2.
Mr. Puneet Sharma, Advocate
for respondent no. 3.
* * *
L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) :
In this revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, National Insurance Company Limited (respondent no.1 before the Permanent Lok Adalat) has assailed Award dated 14.03.2011 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility C. R. No. 4291 of 2011 2 Services), Ferozepur.
Respondent no.1 Om Parkash (applicant/claimant before the Lok Adalat) filed application under Section 22-A (b) (vi) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (in short - the Act) making insurance claim against the petitioner Insurance Company as well as against the New India Assurance Company Limited - respondent no.3 herein (respondent no.2 before the Lok Adalat).
Learned Lok Adalat, vide impugned Award (Annexure P-6), has directed only the petitioner Insurance Company to pay Rs.4,99,500/- with interest to the claimant-applicant. Feeling aggrieved, the instant revision petition has been preferred.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.
Counsel for the petitioner contended that the Lok Adalat has not followed the procedure prescribed under Section 22-C (7) of the Act, and therefore, the Lok Adalat could not adjudicate upon the dispute on merits under sub-section (8) of Section 22-C of the Act.
On the other hand, counsel for respondent no.1-claimant contended that the Lok Adalat has complied with all provisions of Section 22-C of the Act, but reconciliation or settlement was not possible, and therefore, the dispute has been rightly adjudicated upon by the Lok Adalat C. R. No. 4291 of 2011 3 on merits.
I have carefully considered the rival contentions. Perusal of the record of the Permanent Lok Adalat reveals that the case was fixed on some dates of hearing for conciliation proceedings in compliance with Section 22-C (4) of the Act. However, Section 22-C (7) of the Act has not been complied with by the Lok Adalat. The said provision is reproduced hereunder :-
"(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 award in terms thereof and furnish a copy of the same to each of the parties concerned."
In the instant case, there is nothing on record of the Permanent C. R. No. 4291 of 2011 4 Lok Adalat to depict that the said Adalat, at any stage, formed any opinion that there existed element of settlement, which could be acceptable to the parties nor terms of any such possible settlement of the dispute were formulated by the Lok Adalat or given to the parties. Consequently, without complying with these requirements of the aforesaid mandatory provision, the Lok Adalat could not have adjudicated the dispute on merits under Section 22-C (8) of the Act.
In view of the aforesaid, impugned Award of the Lok Adalat cannot be sustained. The same suffers from illegality and jurisdictional error. The matter is required to be remanded to Permanent Lok Adalat for fresh decision in accordance with law, after complying with aforesaid mandatory provision of the Act contained in Section 22-C (7) thereof.
Accordingly, the instant revision petition is allowed. The impugned Award (Annexure P-6) passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat is set aside and the case is remanded to Permanent Lok Adalat for fresh decision in accordance with law after complying with Section 22-C (7) of the Act.
File of the Permanent Lok Adalat be sent back at once. Parties are directed to appear there on 30.10.2012.
September 24, 2012 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE