National Insurance Company Ltd vs Smt. Manorma Devi
2021 Latest Caselaw 3542 Jhar

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                           [Civil Writ Jurisdiction]
                           W.P.(C) No. 5845 of 2009
        National Insurance Company Ltd.                  .... .. ...          Petitioner
                                Versus
        1.Smt. Manorma Devi
        2.Sri Prem Chand Saw
       3.Mahesh Kumar
       4.Sunil Kumar                                               .. ... ... Respondents
                                  ...........

CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO (Through :-Video Conferencing) .........

       For the Petitioner       : Mr. G.C. Jha, Advocate
       For the Resps. 1 & 2     : Mr. Nikhil Ranjan, Advocate
                                  ......
09/ 22.09.2021.

Heard, learned counsel, Mr. G.C. Jha appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned counsel, Mr. Nikhil Ranjan appearing on the instruction of learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 and 2, Mr. Ashutosh Anand.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner- National Insurance Company Ltd. has preferred this writ petition against the award dated 25.08.2008, passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Gumla in Pre-litigation Case No.57 of 2007 whereby a lumpsum amount of Rs.1,80,000/- has been awarded to be paid within a month of the award, failing which, interest @12% per annum from the date of filing of the case until the award is complied with is payable.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. G.C. Jha has submitted that on death of Udai Kumar Gupta, aged about 22 years due to accident on 14.11.2006 by bus bearing registration No.BR-41P-3512, compensation has been awarded under Section 22 C (8) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, which has been amended in the year, 2002.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. G.C. Jha has submitted that the interest has been awarded on the higher side as instead of interest @7.5% per annum, the same has been awarded @ 12% per annum. He has further submitted that he was relying upon some judgments at the time of filing of the writ petition, but subsequently those have been overruled by the Apex Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. G.C. Jha has further submitted that the Permanent Lok Adalat has framed issues in para 7 of the impugned award, as such, claim application was maintainable before the Permanent Lok Adalat.

Learned counsel, Mr. Nikhil Ranjan on the instruction of learned counsel for the respondents, Mr. Ashutosh Anand has appeared in this case on behalf of the

respondents/claimants and submitted that the Permanent Lok Adalat has rightly passed the impugned Award 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 and has referred para 27, which reads as follows:-

"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 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."

Learned counsel, Mr. Nikhil Ranjan on the instruction of learned counsel for the respondents, Mr. Ashutosh Anand has further submitted that the Pre-litigation before the PLA was valid but so far the interest is concerned, this Court may not interfere with the same as meagre amount of Rs.1,80,000/- has been awarded along with interest 12% for the death of person aged about 22 years, as such, in absence of any appeal for enhancement filed by the claimants, this Court may dismiss the writ petition considering the compensation to be just and fair compensation.

After hearing, learned counsel for the parties and on the basis of perusal of the materials and in view of the judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the respondents/ claimants, it appears that no illegality or infirmity has been found in the aforesaid judgment and the compensation is considered to be just and fair compensation for death of a person aged about 22 years and this Court is not inclined to interfere with quantum of compensation or with the interest part.

Accordingly, this instant writ petition is hereby dismissed.

(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.) sandedp