Kerala High Court
Life Insurance Corporation Of India vs Balan M.P on 3 October, 2024
2024:KER:73629
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON
THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2024 / 11TH ASWINA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 34661 OF 2019
PETITIONERS:
1 LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN, CORPORATE OFFICE,
YOGAKSHEMA BUILDING, JEEVAN BIMA MARG, POST BOX 19953,
MUMBAI-400 021.
2 DIVISIONAL MANAGER, LIC OF INDIA,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE, LIC ROAD, KOZHIKODE-673 001.
3 SENIOR BRANCH MANAGER, LIC OF INDIA,
BRANCH OFFICE-3, LIC BUILDING, HUZUR ROAD,
KOZHIKODE-673 001.
4 SENIOR BRANCH MANAGER, LIC OF INDIA,
BRANCH OFFICE-1, WYNAD ROAD, KOZHIKODE-673 001.
BY ADV KEERTHIVAS GIRI
RESPONDENTS:
1 BALAN M.P.
AGED 70 YEARS
S/O.KANARAN, 'ARCHANA', THIRUTHIYAD, PUTHIYARA (PO),
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN-673 004.
2 V.M.BINDU,
SENIOR BRANCH MANAGER, LIC OF INDIA, BRANCH OFFICE,
LIC BUILDING, HUZUR ROAD, KOZHIKODE-673 001.
3 SUNIL PRAKASH,
SENIOR BRANCH MANAGER, LIC OF INDIA, BRANCH OFFICE-1,
WP(C) NO.34661 OF 2019 : 2 :
2024:KER:73629
WYNAD ROAD, KOZHIKODE-673 001.
BY ADVS.
SRI.R.SUDHISH
SMT.M.MANJU
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
03.10.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO.34661 OF 2019 : 3 :
2024:KER:73629
HARISANKAR V. MENON, J.
------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.34661 of 2019
-----------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 3rd day of October, 2024
JUDGMENT
The petitioners have filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P10 proceedings issued by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Kozhikode.
2. Bare facts necessary for the disposal of this writ petition are as under:-
The 1st respondent herein had taken two insurance polices from the petitioners herein bearing Nos.790937504 and 794770042. Of the above two policies, on the first one maturing, the amounts payable WP(C) NO.34661 OF 2019 : 4 : 2024:KER:73629 to the 1st respondent herein was paid. However, the petitioners later realised that an amount of Rs.1,46,169/-
(Rupees One lakh forty six thousand one hundred and sixty nine only) was paid to the 1st respondent in excess of his eligibility. There upon the petitioners requested the 1st respondent to adjust the above amount from the amounts payable upon the 2nd policy maturing on 28.03.2019. Insofar as the 1st respondent did not accept the said request, the petitioners sought to invoke the provisions under Section 22 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (for short, 'the Act'), by filing an appropriate application before the Permanent Lok Adalat.
It may straight away be noticed that the aforesaid two policies were taken by the 1st respondent from two different branches of the Life Insurance Corporation. WP(C) NO.34661 OF 2019 : 5 :
2024:KER:73629
3. The Permanent Lok Adalat, by the impugned proceedings at Ext.P10 arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner is not entitled to recover the amount. Finding thus, the stand of the 1st respondent stood accepted by the Permanent Lok Adalat.
4. It is challenging the said proceedings at Ext.P10 that the captioned writ petition is filed by the petitioners.
5. I have heard Sri. G. Keerthivas, the learned Counsel for the petitioners as well as Sri. R. Sudhish, the learned Counsel for the respondents.
6. Sri. Keerthivas, the learned Counsel for the petitioners would point out that the proceedings culminating in the issue of Ext.P10 is without following WP(C) NO.34661 OF 2019 : 6 : 2024:KER:73629 the procedure prescribed under Section 22 C of the Act and therefore, going by the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Canara Bank v. G.S. Jayaram [2022 (7) SCC 776], Ext.P10 cannot be sustained. On the other hand, Sri. R. Sudhish, the learned Counsel for the respondents would point out that the petitioners are not justified in taking such a contention after having participated in the entire proceedings, leading to the issue of Ext.P10.
7. I have considered the rival submissions as well as the connected records.
8. It is noticed that the 1st respondent approached the Permanent Lok Adalat under the provisions under Section 22-C of the Act. The Apex Court in Canara Bank v. G.S. Jayaram (supra), has considered an almost WP(C) NO.34661 OF 2019 : 7 : 2024:KER:73629 identical situation and has held as under:-
"33. We must now address the first issue i.e. whether the conciliation proceedings before the Permanent Lok Adalats are mandatory before it can decide a dispute on its merits.
34. This issue is clearly resolved from a bare reading of Section 22-C. Section 22-C provides a step-by-step scheme on how a matter is to proceed before the Permanent Lok Adalat. The first step is the filing of the application which ousts the jurisdiction of other civil courts, in accordance with sub-section (1) and (2). The second step is the parties filing requisite submissions and documents before the Permanent Lok Adalat, in accordance with sub-section (3). On the completion of the third step to its satisfaction, the Permanent Lok Adalat can move to the fourth step of attempting conciliation between the parties, in WP(C) NO.34661 OF 2019 : 8 : 2024:KER:73629 accordance with sub-section (4), (5) and (6).
Subsequently, in the fifth step in
accordance with sub-section (7), the
Permanent Lok Adalat has to draw up
terms of settlement on the basis of the conciliation proceedings, and propose them to the parties. If the parties agree, the Permanent Lok Adalat has to pass an award on the basis of the agreed upon terms of settlement. Only if the parties fail to reach an agreement on the fifth step, can the Permanent Lok Adalat proceed to the final step and decide the dispute on its merits."
(underlining supplied)
9. The learned Counsel for the 1 st respondent would point out that in the afore judgment of the Apex Court, there is a slight difference insofar as the appellant therein-Cananra Bank-was set ex parte before the Permanent Lok Adalat. However, I notice that the said WP(C) NO.34661 OF 2019 : 9 : 2024:KER:73629 question is also considered by the Apex Court in paragraph 36 of the judgment holding that even if the opposite party is not appearing, the Permanent Lok Adalat is not entitled to dispense with the conciliation proceedings straight away and adjudicate the dispute under Section 22-C (8). In the light of the above principles laid down by the Apex Court, in the case at hand, the 1st respondent had appeared and so much so it was the duty of the Permanent Lok Adalat, to have referred the matter for a conciliation attempt as prescribed under Section 22-C (4). I notice that in the case at hand, before issuing the proceedings at Ext.P10, the Permanent Lok Adalat has not ventured to attempt a conciliation as prescribed by the statute. In the said circumstances, Ext.P10, cannot be sustained. WP(C) NO.34661 OF 2019 : 10 :
2024:KER:73629
10. I also notice that this Court on 26.07.2023 had called for a report from the Permanent Lok Adalat as to whether before issuing the proceedings at Ext.P10, any conciliation attempt had been attempted. Pursuant thereto, the Permanent Lok Adalat, by a communication dated 29.07.2023, has reported that before issuing the proceedings at Ext.P10, no conciliation proceedings have been finalized, though the matter was posted for conciliation on two posting dates.
11. In the above circumstances, it is evident that Ext.P10 is issued without attempting the conciliation as prescribed by the statute.
12. Resultantly, Ext.P10 issued by the Permanent Lok Adalat would stand set aside. The Permanent Lok Adalat, is directed to consider the issue afresh, attempt a WP(C) NO.34661 OF 2019 : 11 : 2024:KER:73629 conciliation as prescribed by the statue and then proceed accordingly. Taking note of the fact that, the 1 st respondent is a senior citizen aged 75 years, there will be a further direction to the Permanent Lok Adalat to finalize the proceedings as above within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
HARISANKAR V. MENON JUDGE SRJ WP(C) NO.34661 OF 2019 : 12 : 2024:KER:73629 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 34661/2019 PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF MONEY BACK POLICY BEARING NO.790937504.
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF BIMA GOLD POLICY BEARING NO.794770042.
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE PROPOSAL DATED 30.03.2008 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE CONSENT LETTER DATED 20.05.2006 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF LETTER DATED 21.03.2019 SENT BY THE PETITIONER CORPORATION TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF LETTER DATED 23.03.2019 RECEIVED FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF OP NO.31/2019 ON THE FILES OF THE PERMANENT LOK ADALATH, KOZHIKODE. EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF WRITTEN VERSION FILED BY THE PETITIONER CORPORATION IN THE ORIGINAL PETITION.
EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF ADDITIONAL WRITTEN VERSION FILED BY THE PETITIONER CORPORATION IN THE ORIGINAL PETITION.
EXHIBIT P10 A TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 31.10.2019 IN OP NO.31/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE PERMANENT LOK ADALATH, KOZHIKODE. Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE FIXED DEPOSIT RECEIPT DATED 17.03.2023 ISSUED BY UNION BANK OF INDIA IN FAVOUR OF M/S LIC OF INDIA.
WP(C) NO.34661 OF 2019 : 13 :
2024:KER:73629 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS Exhibit R1(a) COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 27.3.2019.