Jharkhand High Court
Icici Lombard General Insurance ... vs Mrs. Asran Kiro on 16 August, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
[Civil Writ Jurisdiction]
W.P.(C) No. 5674 of 2009
ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company .... .. ... Petitioner
Versus
Mrs. Asran Kiro .. ... ... Respondent
...........
CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO
.........
For the Petitioner : Mr. Amit Kr. Das, Advocate
For the respondent : Mr. Navin Kumar, Advocate
......
05/ 16.08.2022.
Heard, learned counsel for the parties.
Petitioner- ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. has preferred this writ
petition against the impugned order dated 07.03.2009 passed by Permanent Lok
Adalat, Simdega in M.J.C. No.15 of 2007 whereby the Insurance Company has
been directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,04,648/- within a period of 15 days, failing
which the petitioner was directed to pay a sum of Rs.100/- per day as fine.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Amit Kumar Das has submitted, that
Apex Court in the case of Canara Bank Vs. G.S. Jayarama reported in 2022
SCC OnLine SC 656, has considered the things at paras-42 & 43 of the
judgment, which may profitably be quoted hereunder:
"42. At the same time, the Division Bench in its impugned judgement also noted that the
Permanent Lok Adalat failed to follow the mandatory conciliation proceedings in the
present case. This observation is correct since the award of the Permanent Lok Adalat does
not indicate any attempt made by it to propose terms of settlement to the parties and their
rejection. It states that once the respondent and his guarantor did not appear, it adjudicated
the dispute on merits in favour of the respondent. For the reasons mentioned earlier in this
judgment, the Permanent Lok Adalat could not have done so. Therefore, on this point only,
we uphold the final judgment of the Division Bench setting aside the award dated 19
November 2014 of the Permanent Lok Adalat.
43. Consequently, we hold that the observations of the Division Bench in the impugned
judgment in respect of the adjudicatory powers of the Permanent Lok Adalats were
incorrect, while upholding its ultimate conclusion since the Permanent Lok Adalat failed to
follow the mandatory conciliation proceedings in the present case."
Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Amit Kumar Das has further submitted
that Permanent Lok Adalat has failed to follow the mandatory conciliation
proceedings in the present case and apart from that wrongly granted the award in
favour of the claimant as the vehicle was insured for private car package policy,
but the vehicle was used as per the evidence under the hire or reward scheme, as
such, the impugned award is fit to be set aside.
Learned counsel for the respondent, Mr. Navin Kumar has submitted that in
view of the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Canara Bank (Supra), it is
mandatory to have conciliating proceeding, as such, the impugned award cannot
sustain in the eyes of law.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since there is violation
of the private car package policy for which the vehicle was insured as the same is
used under Hire or Reward scheme, as such, the impugned order is also bad in
law.
Considering the rival submissions of the parties, looking into the facts and
circumstances of the case, that the Court has passed the award without
considering the private car package policy, where the evidence shows that the
vehicle was used under hire or reward scheme. The award dated 07.03.2009
cannot sustain in the eyes of law, as such, order dated 07.03.2009 passed by
Permanent Lok Adalat, Simdega in M.J.C. No.15 of 2007 is hereby set aside.
Apart from that, Permanent Lok Adalat has failed to follow the conciliation
proceeding.
Accordingly, the instant writ petition is allowed.
(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.)
R.S.
