Punjab-Haryana High Court
National Insurance Company Ltd vs Rajesh Kumar And Another on 3 September, 2013
Author: L. N. Mittal
Bench: L. N. Mittal
C. R. No. 2318 of 2011 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Sr. No. 644
Case No. : C. R. No. 2318 of 2011
Date of Decision : Sept. 03, 2013
National Insurance Company Ltd. .... Petitioner
Vs.
Rajesh Kumar and another .... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL
* * *
Present : Mr. Paul S. Saini, Advocate
for the petitioner.
None for the respondents.
* * *
L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) :
National Insurance Company Ltd. (respondent before the Permanent Lok Adalat/Public Utility Services, Gurgaon, in short - the Permanent Lok Adalat) has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning Award dated 05.01.2011 (Annexure P-
7) passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, thereby allowing application filed by respondent no. 1 Rajesh Kumar under Section 22-C of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 (in short - the Act) and thereby, directing the Monika 2013.09.05 10:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh C. R. No. 2318 of 2011 2 Insurance Company to pay Rs.36,550/- to respondent no. 1 herein with interest. Certain consequential directions have also been issued.
I have heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file including file of the Permanent Lok Adalat, which has been received pursuant to order of the preceding date, whereas none has appeared for contesting respondent no. 1.
Counsel for the petitioner contended that the Permanent Lok Adalat did not follow the procedure provided in Section 22-C of the Act. There is considerable merit in the contention. According to Section 22-C of the Act, conciliation proceedings have to be conducted by the Permanent Lok Adalat. Further, if the Permanent Lok Adalat is of the opinion that there exist elements of settlement, 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 only then, if the parties fail to reach an agreement, the Permanent Lok Adalat can decide the dispute. In the instant case, however, neither conciliation proceedings were conducted by the Permanent Lok Adalat nor it formed opinion that there existed elements of settlement, which could be acceptable to the parties nor it formulated the terms of a possible settlement. Consequently, mandatory procedure prescribed in Section 22-C of the Act has not been followed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, and therefore, it had no jurisdiction to adjudicate Monika 2013.09.05 10:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh C. R. No. 2318 of 2011 3 the dispute under the said provision. In this view, I am supported by an unreported judgment dated 24.09.2012 of this Court passed in the case bearing C. R. No. 4291 of 2011 titled National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Om Prakash and others.
In view of the aforesaid, impugned Award of the Permanent Lok Adalat cannot be sustained. The same suffers from illegality and jurisdictional error. The matter is, therefore, required to be remanded to the Permanent Lok Adalat for fresh decision in accordance with law by complying with mandatory provision of Section 22-C of the Act.
Accordingly, the instant revision petition is allowed. Impugned Award (Annexure P-7) passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat is set aside and the case is remanded to Permanent Lok Adalat for decision in accordance with law by complying with provision of Section 22-C of the Act.
File of the Permanent Lok Adalat be sent back at once. Parties are directed to appear there on 30.09.2013.
Sept. 03, 2013 ( L. N. MITTAL )
monika JUDGE
Monika
2013.09.05 10:13
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court Chandigarh