HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD A.F.R. Court No. - 38 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 58593 of 2012 Petitioner :- Icici Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Respondent :- District Legal Services Authority And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rahul Sahai Counsel for Respondent :- Firoz Haider,Lal Chandra Mishra Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.N. Iqbal Hasan holding brief of Sri Firoz Haider learned counsel for the respondent No.3, the main contesting party.
The petitioner in this writ petition has come up against the award of the Permanent Lok Adalat adjudicating the claim of the respondent No.3 on merits and awarding Rs.2,01,000/- to her with 10% interest w.e.f.02.03.2012, the date on which the petition was presented till its payment.
One of the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the judgement, order and award of the Lok Adalat is without jurisdiction as Permanent Lok Adalat is not vested with any authority to adjudicate the dispute between the parties on merits. The second argument is that the Insurance Policy covered the owner as well as the worker of the establishment but in respect of the worker the liability of the Insurance Company was upto the Rs.1,00,000/-only and as such the award of Rs.2,00,000/- is illegal.
The Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was enacted by the Parliament to provide free legal services to the weaker section of the Society and to ensure that justice is not denied to any citizen by reason of economic, social or other disabilities by organising Lok Adalats to provide speedy alternative and innovative mechanism for dispute resolution.
Chapter VI-A titled "Pre-Litigation Conciliation and Settlement" was added to the above Act by Act No.37 of 2002. It contains Section-22A to Section 22-E providing for the establishment of Permanent Lok Adalats, the method of resolution and settlement of disputes to be followed for the purpose and if necessary, for its adjudication in terms of award.
The role of conciliation, settlement and adjudication assigned to Permanent Lok Adalat under the Act is at the pre-litigation stage that is before a dispute between the parties is brought before the court.
The jurisdiction of the Permanent Lok Adalat is in relation to 'public utility services' as defined under Section 22-A of the Act subject to pecuniary jurisdiction as provided under Section 22-C of the Act of Rs. Ten lakhs which has been enhanced to Rs. one crore.
The aforesaid provision further provides that Permanent Lok Adalat shall not have jurisdiction in respect of any matters relating to an offence which are not compoundable under law meaning thereby that it has jurisdiction in matters of a criminal nature in respect of offences which are compoundable.
Section 22-C(2) of the Act lays down that a party who has approached the Permanent Lok Adalat for the settlement of the dispute shall not invoke jurisdiction of any other court in connection with the same dispute. In other words, it excludes the jurisdiction of all other courts in respect of the matters cognizable by Permanent Lok Adalat if any of the party to the dispute has invoked the jurisdiction of the Permanent Lok Adalat for its settlement.
Section 22-C (3), (4), (5), & (7) of the Act lays down the procedure to be followed before the Permanent Lok Adalat for conciliation and settlement of any dispute and by virtue of Section 12-D of the Act it has been provided that in conducting the proceedings or deciding a dispute on merit, the Permanent Lok Adalat shall be guided by the principles of natural justice fair play, equity etc. Section 22-C(8) of the Act categorically lays down that where the parties fail to reach an agreement for the settlement of the dispute, the Permanent Lok Adalat shall, if the dispute does not relate to any offence, decide the same. It means that if any dispute before the Lok Adalat is not settled by conciliation and if it does not relate to any offence, it can be decided by the Permanent Lok Adalat on merits.
In view of the language used in Section 22-C(8) and 22-D of the Act it is ample clear that the Permanent Lok Adalat is not only possessed with the power of conciliation and settlement of dispute at the pre-litigation stage but also has the power to adjudicate it provided the matter does not relate to an offence.
This is also implicit from the fact that Section 22-C(2) of the Act outs the jurisdiction of all other courts once a party invokes the jurisdiction of Permanent Lok Adalat for the settlement of the dispute even if the settlement fails subsequently, meaning thereby that in the event of non-settlement the party would be remedyless to get his cause adjudicated. This is not the purpose of the Permanent Lok Adalat. Its object is to rather get the disputes resolved before they reach the court. If the disputes are not resolved or settled by the Permanent Lok Adalat as the jurisdiction of other courts stand ousted, the party suffering has been provided with the remedy to get the dispute adjudicated on merit by the Permanent Lok Adalat itself.
It is to mitigate the hardship due ouster of jurisdiction of the foras and to compensate the ouster of jurisdiction of all other courts that Sub-Section (8) of Section 22-C of the Act provides that if the dispute is not resolved by conciliation/settlement, it could be adjudicated by the Permanent Lok Adalat on merits.
The challenge to the aforesaid provisions of the Act added by the Amending Act of 2002 came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in Bar Council of India Vs. Union of India (2012) 8 Supreme Court Cases 243. The Supreme Court upholding the validity of the above provisions held that every award of Permanent Lok Adalat either on merits or in terms of the final settlement is binding on all parties and that there is no provision of any appeal against the same. If any party to the dispute has grievance against the award of Permanent Lok Adalat it is open for him to approach the High Court under its supervisory/extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India.
The aforesaid judgment recognises the dual role of conciliator and adjudicator performed by the Permanent Lok Adalat. It lays down that where efforts fail to get the dispute resolved and settled, it can be adjudicated through the decision of the Permanent Lok Adalat under Section 22-C(8) of the Act in respect of the matters of public utilities subject to other restraints as have been laid down in the Act.
In United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ajay Sinha and another AIR 2008 Supreme Court 2398, the controversy before the Permanent Lok Adalat was with regard to the claim against insurance company for the loss of goods in burglary. The Supreme Court under the facts and circumstances of the said case held that as the determination before the Permanent Lok Adalat was regarding the commission or non-commission of an offence which was non-compoundable in nature was outside its jurisdiction. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the said case has not laid down that the Permanent Lok Adalat does not possess the adjudicatory jurisdiction.
In Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Suresh Kumar (2011) 7 Supreme Court Cases 491 it has been observed by the Supreme Court that Permanent Lok Adalat is not a regular court to adjudication the disputes between the parties on merits but the said observation is without reference or consideration of any provisions of the fact as contained under Chapter VI-A of the Act and is more or less obitor in nature.
In M/s Torrent Power Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. and others 2014 (1) ADJ 563 which was a case relating to theft of electricity under the Electricity Act, 2003 His Lordship of this court held that where a dispute which is an offence but is compoundable can be entertained by the Permanent Lok Adalat for the purposes of conciliation and settlement but upon failure the Permanent Lok Adalat cannot proceed to decide such matters on merits irrespective of the fact as to whether it is compoundable or not.
The aforesaid decision is not an authority on the point that the Permanent Lok Adalat has no jurisdiction to adjudicate any dispute on merits rather it only lays down that if the dispute relates to an offence it could not be decided on merits by the Permanent Lok Adalat.
On the contrary in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Permanent Lok Adalat 2014 (104) ALR 872 a claim with regard to an accident due to rash and negligent driving came up for consideration before the Permanent Lok Adalat and was adjudicated on merits. The Court rejected the challenge to the award of the Permanent Lok Adalat on the ground that it was not competent to decide the dispute on merits as it was not a dispute in relation to any offence.
In Deputy General Manager Bhartiya Door Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Vs. Ram Kumar Sharma and others 2011 (10) ADJ 837 a learned Single Judge of this court dealing with the jurisdiction of the Permanent Lok Adalat to decide the dispute between the parties on merits observed that though the role of a Permanent Lok Adalat is initially that of conciliation and not of adjudicatory nature but if the parties fail to reach an agreement by conciliation, the Permanent Lok Adalat mutates into an adjudicating body and takes the role of deciding the dispute on merits. The Parliament under the Act has assigned the Permanent Lok Adalat within adjudicating role to play also.
A similar view has been taken by this court in the case of Dr. Piyush Gupta Vs. Smt. Suman 2012 (7) ADJ 681.
The argument that the Permanent Lok Adalat was not competent to decide the dispute on merits was not accepted by another Lordship of this court in the case of Executive Engineer Electricity Distribution Division-II Vs. Chairman Permanent Lok Adalat and others Manu/UP/1302/2015.
In the case of Executive Engineer Electricity Distribution Division Vs. Shankar Dayal Singh and another considering the decision of the Supreme Court in LIC of India Vs. Suresh Kumar (supra) and the various provisions of the Act specially Section 22-C(8) of the Act it was ruled that the Permanent Lok Adalat is authorised to decide the dispute between the parties at the pre-litigation stage on merits if it relates to public utility service and does not relate to any offence provided the procedure for conciliation and settlement had failed.
Recently one of the Lordships of this court in Life Insurance Corporation of India, Kanpur Nagar Vs. Syed Zaigham Ali and another 2015(8) ADJ 668 acknowledged the power of the Permanent Lok Adalat to adjudicate the dispute between the parties but quashed the award of the Permanent Lok Adalat as endeavour was not made to conduct conciliation inter se the parties to reach a settlement.
It is in the light of the above legal position that the Permanent Lok Adalat is possessed of the power to decide all disputes of the parties on merits after the conciliation/settlement has failed, if they do not relate to any offence, it is to be examined whether in the present case the dispute could have been adjudicated on merits by the Permanent Lok Adalat.
A policy for a Long Term Group Personal Accident Insurance was taken out by the Labour Department U.P. Kanpur with the ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. covering the owners of the establishment and its workers on a premium to be paid by the owners of the establishment through the Labour Department to the Insurance Company.
The aforesaid scheme was subject to the terms and conditions of the Shram Jyoti Durghatna Beema Yojana and provides for the insurance coverage of the shop/commercial establishment owner for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- & for its additional partners in the shop/commercial establishment on payment of extra-premium and for the workers upto Rs.1,00,000/- only.
One Mohd. Anees was employed with M/s Lucky Battery, an establishment covered by the above insurance scheme. He met with a road accident and died. The respondent No.3 submitted a claim with the petitioner insurance company but it was declined on the ground of delay. She then approached the Permanent Lok Adalat under Section 22-C of the Act for settlement of the dispute at the pre-litigation stage. The conciliation and settlement between the parties failed leading to the impugned award.
The narration of the above facts and the nature of the claim as raised by respondent No.3 and which has been adjudicated on merits by the Permanent Lok Adalat reveals that the dispute before it was not a dispute which related to any offence and as such the Permanent Lok Adalat was certainly possessed of the power to adjudicate it on merits on the failure of settlement. It is not the case of the petitioner that the procedure for the conciliation and settlement as laid down under the Act was not followed and that it had not failed before the dispute was adjudicated on merits.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the first argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner that the award is without jurisdiction is of no substance and stands rejected.
The second argument of the petitioner is that the policy covered the worker to the extent of Rs.1,00,000/- only and therefore, the award of Rs.2,00,100/- is illegal and beyond the policy.
The petitioner on notice of the proceedings before the Permanent Lok Adalat had put in appearance through counsel and had raised an objection with regard to the jurisdiction of the Permanent Lok Adalat but later failed to participate in the proceedings. The court made full endeavour to reconcile and settle the matter but it failed whereupon it was decided on merits.
The petitioner had not taken any objection at any stage that the worker under the policy is covered only upto Rs.1,00,000/-. No such pleading has been taken by the petitioner even in the writ petition. In the absence of any such pleading in the writ petition respondent No.3 is unable to submit any reply on the above aspect. It is for the first time during the course of arguments that such a plea is being advanced on behalf of the petitioner.
It has been a consistent view of the courts that the writ petition should be decided on the basis of the pleadings on record and not otherwise. In B.S.N. Joshi & Sons Ltd. Vs. Nair Coal Services Ltd. and others (2006) 11 Supreme Court Cases 548 it has been held that a ground not raised or pleaded in the writ petition is not open to be argued.
In Union of India and others Vs. Jai Prakash Singh and another (2007) 10 Supreme Court Cases 712 it has been held that the High Court cannot travel beyond the pleadings and grant relief. In another case Raj Kumar Soni and another Vs. State of U.P. and another (2007) 10 Supreme Court Cases 635 it has been held that the foundational facts must be pleaded as would enable the High Court to scrutinise the nature and the contents of the right alleged to have been violated.
In view of the above decisions as the petitioner has not pleaded and taken any ground in the writ petition that the policy covered the worker only upto Rs.1,00,000/-, the argument that the permanent Lok Adalat had erred in awarding the higher amount has no foundation to stand and cannot be accepted.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the writ petition is devoid of merit and is dismissed with cost upon the parties.
Order Date :- 6.10.2015 Piyush