National Insurance Company ... vs Chanchal Kumari Pandey & Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 3688 Jhar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                 (Civil Writ Jurisdiction)
                W.P. (C) No. 3835 of 2009
                        ........

National Insurance Company Limited .... ..... Petitioner Versus Chanchal Kumari Pandey & Others .... ..... Respondents

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

For the Petitioner              : Mr. G.C. Jha, Advocate
For the Respondent No. 1        : Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 6        : Mr. Alok Lal, Advocate.
                                    ........
14/29.09.2021.

Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. G.C. Jha, learned counsel for the claimant, Mr. Sunil Kumar and learned counsel for the New India Assurance Company Limited, Mr. Alok Lal.

The National Insurance Company Limited has challenged the award dated 05.09.2008 passed by Permanent Lok Adalat in P.L.A. Case No. 166/2007, whereby the Permanent Lok Adalat has awarded compensation in favour of the claimant namely, Chanchal Kumari Pandey, wife of Shiv Kumar Pandey and Smt. Shakuntala Devi, mother of the Shiv Kumar Pandey, for the death of Shiv Kumar Pandey, who died on 08.06.2006, in motor accident caused by offending vehicle bearing registration no. HR-38A-1694 to the tune of Rs. 6,47,000/- to be paid within 30 days of the order, failing which the claimant is at liberty to recover and realise the same through the process of law with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of order and out of the said awarded amount, sum of Rs. 2,47,000/- will be paid to mother of the deceased namely, Shakuntala Devi.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned Permanent Lok Adalat has passed order and award, where the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act is not applicable, as such, the impugned order and award may be set aside.

Learned counsel, Mr. Sunil Kumar, appearing for the claimant has submitted 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."

Learned counsel for the claimant has further submitted that the accident took place in the year 2006 and the compensation amount is just and fair, which may not be interfered otherwise under the Motor Vehicles Act, this amount may go higher and since the claimant has not preferred any appeal for enhancement, as such, this Court may not interfere with the same considering it to be just and fair compensation.

Considering the rival submissions of the parties, since the adjudication by the Permanent Lok Adalat is legal and valid in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Bar Council of India (Supra), this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same, as the accident is of 08.06.2006 and more than 15 years have elapsed.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.) Sunil/-