Jharkhand High Court
National Insurance Company ... vs Tara Devi & Others on 16 November, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Civil Writ Jurisdiction)
W.P. (C) No. 2789 of 2008
........
National Insurance Company Limited .... ..... Petitioner
Versus
Tara Devi & Others .... ..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO
............
For the Petitioner : Mr. G.C. Jha, Advocate
For the Respondents :
........
09/16.11.2021.
Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. G.C. Jha.
The National Insurance Company Limited has challenged the
award dated 20.12.2007 passed by Permanent Lok Adalat in P.L.A.
Case No. 44/2007, whereby the Permanent Lok Adalat has awarded
compensation in favour of the claimant namely, Tara Devi, wife of
Doman Sahu, for the death of her son namely, Nitesh Kumar, aged
about 6 years, who died on 28.06.2007, in motor accident caused by
offending vehicle bearing registration no. JH-07B-3764 to the tune
of Rs. 1,40,000/- to be paid within one month of the order, failing
which the awardee shall realise the award money along with 12%
(rate) per annum from the date of filing of pre-litigation petition as
provided the procedure under Section 22E of the Legal Services
Authorities Act (A), 2002.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
learned Permanent Lok Adalat has passed order / award, where the
provisions of Motor Vehicles Act is not applicable, as such, the
impugned order / award may be set aside.
It appears that in view of the judgment passed by the Apex
Court in the case of Bar Council of India Vs. Union of India
reported in (2012) 8 SCC 243 (Para-27), adjudication by Permanent
Lok Adalat is valid and justified. Para-27 of the aforesaid judgment
may profitably be quoted hereunder:-
"27. Can the power conferred on Permanent Lok Adalats to
adjudicate the disputes between the parties concerning public
utility service upto 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 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."
It further appears that the accident took place in the year 2007
and the compensation amount is just and fair, which shall not be
interfered otherwise under the Motor Vehicles Act, the compensation
amount shall go higher but since the claimant has not preferred any
appeal for enhancement, as such, this Court is not interfering with
the same considering it to be just and fair compensation, as the
adjudication by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Gumla is legal and valid
in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Bar
Council of India (Supra).
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.)
Sunil/-
