Allahabad High Court
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. ... vs Ram Kishore And 11 Ors on 14 March, 2023
Bench: Sangeeta Chandra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 4
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 765 of 2018
Petitioner :- Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Thru Divisional Manager
Respondent :- Ram Kishore And 11 Ors
Counsel for Petitioner :- Waquar Hashim
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C,Naresh Singh
Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.
1. Heard Sri Waquar Hashim, learned counsel for the petitioner- Insurance Company and Sri Naresh Singh, learned counsel for the contesting respondent.
2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 01.12.2017 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat in P.L.A. Case No.78/2016: Ramkishore and others Vs. Oriental Insurance Company and others.
3. There is an agreement between the counsel for the parties that the matter stands covered by the judgment and order dated 25.08.2022 passed in Writ-C No.3536 of 2016: Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Through Divisional Manager Vs. Smt. Guddi Devi @ Shanti Devi and others.
4. This Court has perused the order under challenge passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat and also the judgment and order dated 25.08.2022 passed in Writ-C No.3536 of 2016.
5. The Court having considered the controversy at length, has observed as follows:-
"7. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner-Insurance Company has confined his prayer to the extent that penalty imposed under Clause 22(b) of the agreement may be reduced as it has already been reduced in other identical matters.
8. Learned counsel for the respondents has no objection to the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner-Insurance Company.
9. In view of the discussions made above, it is found that there is no illegality and perversity in the impugned judgment passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat as far as accepting the insurance claims of the private respondents and hence, no interference is called for in the judgment impugned.
10. The position with regard to the applicability of Clause 22(b) of the Agreement which emerges out is that though there is no requirement under the agreement to repudiate the claim of a person having Khatauni with non-transferrable right but the action was not mala fide or in bad faith. As per Clause 4 of the agreement, the computerized khatauni was required for the purpose of the claim and hence it cannot be said that rejection of claim on the said ground is wholly illegal. As the judgment relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to the quantifying the penalty by this Court in Writ Petition Nos. 20736 of (M/S) 2018 and 5324 of (M/S) 2015, this Court has held that the penalty imposed as per Clause 22(b) of the Agreement is exorbitant and quantified the amount of penalty as Rs. 50,000/- and 75,000/- respectively.
11. This Court having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the resultant delay would quantify the amount of penalty at Rs. 75,000/- and to this extent, the impugned judgment is modified. The amount of Rs.1 Lakh along with interest @9% per annum from the date of the order of the Permanent Lok Adalat as well as the amount of penalty of Rs.75,000/- to be deposited before the Permanent Lok Adalat within a period of six weeks and shall be released in favour of the opposite parties forthwith after due verification of their identities. If any amount was deposited earlier that shall be adjusted against the total amount to be paid by the petitioner-Insurance company in pursuance of the order passed today.
12. For the foregoing reasons, as mentioned above, the petition is partly allowed in so far, it relates to reduction of amount of penalty imposed under Clause 22(b) of the agreement only.
13. The petition is therefore, disposed of as partly allowed in the manner indicated above."
6. This petition is disposed of by directing payment of Rs.1,00,000/- compensation along with 9% interest per annum with effect from 01.12.2017 till the date of payment to the respondents and penalty to the tune of Rs.75,000/- under Clause 22(b) of the agreement.
7. The petitioner Insurance Company had already deposited the entire amount as determined by the Permanent Lok Adalat in its order dated 01.12.2017 before this Court. The Senior Registrar of this Court is directed to transfer the entire amount along with the interest accrued thereon, if any, to the permanent Lok Adalat Lucknow in P.L.A. Case No.78 of 2016:Ramkishore and others Vs. Oriental Insurance Company and others, within a period of two weeks from today. The respondent no.1 shall be entitled to file an application for release of the said amount from the office of the P.L.A. by moving an appropriate application in this regard, subject to verification of identity and on moving of such application, the amount shall be released forthwith.
8. If the petitioner has deposited any excess amount in the Registry in pursuance of impugned order, the same shall be returned to counsel for the petitioner on moving an appropriate application in this regard.
Order Date :- 14.3.2023
Rahul
