National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Ms. Manjur Ahmed And Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 2940 Gua

                                                                     Page No.# 1/5

GAHC010118552016




                              THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
   (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                                Case No. : CRP/346/2016

            NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
            A WHOLLY GOVT. OF INDIA OWNED PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKING
            HAVING ITS LOCAL OFFICE AT KOLKATA, ON OF THE DIVISIONAL
            OFFICERS AT SILCHAR, CACHAR REP. BY BRANCH MANAGER,
            KARIMGANJ BRANCH, P.O. KARIMGANJ, ASSAM.



            VERSUS

            MS. MANJUR AHMED and ANR.
            S/O. KUTUBUDDIN, VILL. DIGHIRPOR, P.S. BADARPUR, DIST. KARIMGANJ,
            ASSAM-788806.

            2:NASIM UDDIN
             S/O. LT. YESHIN ALI
            VILL. DEORAIL
             P.S. BADARPUR
             DIST. KARIMGANJ
            ASSAM-788806

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR.B J MUKHERJEE

Advocate for the Respondent :

Page No.# 2/5

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA

JUDGMENT AND ORDER

12.08.2022

Heard Mr. H. Buragohain, learned counsel representing the petitioner as well as Mr. M. Khan, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India whereby the Judgment dated 30.01.2016 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat at Karimganj in PLA Case No. 04/2008.

3. A Maruti-800 car bearing registration no. As-11 C-3204 was owned by Md. Manjur Ahmed. The vehicle was insured under the National Insurance Company Limited. On 25.08.2006, the driver of the vehicle took it to a garage for servicing but the vehicle did not return home. At about 8 PM on that day, the driver informed the owner that the vehicle was forcibly taken away by unknown miscreants. Md. Manjur Ahmed lodged the FIR before Police. Ultimately, the vehicle could not be recovered.

4. With the aforesaid story, Md. Manjur Ahmed laid the claim before the Insurance Company but the claim was repudiated by the Insurance Company. Therefore, Md. Manjur Ahmed approached the Permanent Lok Adalat at Karimganj. The Permanent Lok Adalat after hearing both sides, directed the petitioner/insurance company to pay Rs.2,10,761/- within two months along with an interest @ 9% per annum.

5. On being aggrieved by the said order, the present revision petition has been filed.

6. The primary contention of the Insurance Company is that Md. Manjur Ahmed along with the driver got together to cause disappearance of the vehicle and dishonestly laid the claim for insurance money.

7. Mr. Buragohain submits that under Section22 of the Legal Services Act, 1987, the Permanent Lok Adalat is not entitled to dispose of a matter in the manner as has been done by the Permanent Lok Page No.# 3/5

Adalat at Karimganj. According to Mr. Buragohain, only conciliatory approach is allowed in a Permanent Lok Adalat. Mr. Buragohain clarified that when both sides are in agreement then only Permanent Lok Adalat is entitled to endorse the agreement.

8. Per contra, Mr. Khan submits that Permanent Lok Adalat is an alternative dispute resolution forum. Mr. Khan Submits that the Permanent Lok Adalat is vested with the powers of a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure. In order to buttress his point, Mr. Khan has relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court, that was rendered inBar Council of India v. Union of India, reported in (2012) 8 SCC

243. Paragraphs 25, 26, 27 and 34 of the said judgment are quoted as under: "25. The Permanent Lok Adalats under the 1987 Act (as amended by the 2002 Amendment Act) are in addition to and not in derogation of the fora provided under various statutes. This position is accepted by the Central Government in their counter- affidavit.

26. It is necessary to bear in mind that the disputes relating to public utility services have been entrusted to Permanent Lok Adalats only if the process of conciliation and settlement fails. The emphasis is on settlement in respect of disputes concerning public utility services through the medium of Permanent Lok Adalat. It is for this reason that sub-section (1) of Section 22-C states in no unambiguous terms that any party to a dispute may before the dispute is brought before any court make an application to the Permanent Lok Adalat for settlement of dispute. Thus, settlement of dispute between the parties in matters of public utility services is the main theme. However, where despite the endeavours and efforts of the Permanent Lok Adalat the settlement between the parties is not through and the parties are required to have their dispute determined and adjudicated, to avoid delay in adjudication of disputes relating to public utility services, Parliament has intervened and conferred power of adjudication upon the Permanent Lok Adalat.

27. Can the power conferred on Permanent Lok Adalats to adjudicate the disputes between the parties concerning public utility service up to a specific pecuniary limit, if they do not relate to any offence, as provided under Section 22-C(8), be said to be unconstitutional and irrational? We think not. It is settled law that an authority empowered to adjudicate the disputes between the parties and act as a tribunal may not necessarily have all the trappings of the court. What is essential is that it must be a creature of statute and should adjudicate the dispute between the parties before it after giving reasonable opportunity to them consistent with the principles of fair play and natural justice. It is not a constitutional right of any person to have the dispute adjudicated by means of a court Page No.# 4/5

only. Chapter VI-A has been enacted to provide for an institutional mechanism, through the establishment of Permanent Lok Adalats for settlement of disputes concerning public utility service before the matter is brought to the court and in the event of failure to reach any settlement, empowering the Permanent Lok Adalat to adjudicate such dispute if it does not relate to any offence.

34. The alternative institutional mechanism in Chapter VI-A with regard to the disputes concerning public utility service is intended to provide an affordable, speedy and efficient mechanism to secure justice. By not making applicable the Code of Civil Procedure and the statutory provisions of the Evidence Act, there is no compromise on the quality of determination of dispute since the Permanent Lok Adalat has to be objective, decide the dispute with fairness and follow the principles of natural justice. Sense of justice and equity continue to guide the Permanent Lok Adalat while conducting conciliation proceedings or when the conciliation proceedings fail, in deciding a dispute on merit."

9. I have considered by the submissions made by the learned counsels for both sides. At this stage, a brief visit to Section 22 of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 would be fruitful. It reads as under:

"22. Powers of 1[Lok Adalat or Permanent Lok Adalat].--

(1) The 1[Lok Adalat or Permanent Lok Adalat] shall, for the purposes of holding any determination under this Act, have the same powers as are vested in a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) while trying a suit in respect of the following matters, namely:--

(a) the summoning and enforcing the attendance of any witness and examining him on oath;

(b) the discovery and production of any document;

(c) the reception of evidence on affidavits;

(d) the requisitioning of any public record or document or copy of such record or document from any court or office; and

(e) such other matters as may be prescribed.

(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the powers contained in sub-section (1), every 1[Lok Adalat or Permanent Lok Adalat] shall have the requisite powers to specify its own procedure for the determination of any dispute coming before it.

(3) All proceedings before a 1[Lok Adalat or Permanent Lok Adalat] shall be deemed to be judicial proceedings Page No.# 5/5

within the meaning of sections 193, 219 and 228 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) and every 1[Lok Adalat or Permanent Lok Adalat] shall be deemed to be a civil court for the purpose of section 195 and Chapter XXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)."

10. Lok Adalats or Permanent Lok Adalats, these are alternative dispute resolution forum. They are vested with the powers of a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure. They can even receive evidence and can hear the parties. Proceedings before Permanent Lok Adalat are judicial proceedings within the meaning of Section 193, 219 and 228 of the Indian Penal Code and Permanent Lok Adalats or Lok Adalats are statutorily deemed to be civil courts for the purpose of Section 195 and Chapter XXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

11. The petitioner Insurance Company is a public utility service under Section 22A (b)(vi) of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987. The alternative institutional mechanism in Chapter VIA of the Act of 1987 with regard to disputes concerning public utility service is intended to provide a speedy, affordable and efficient mechanism to secure justice.

12. The Permanent Lok Adalat at Karimganj has rightly decided the matter within its power under Section 22 of the Act of 1987. There is no infirmity in the said order. No interference of this Court is necessary in this case. Therefore, the present Civil Revision Petition is found to be devoid of merit and stands dismissed accordingly.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant