Zen Star vs The Union Of India
2022 Latest Caselaw 1634 Ker

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
  MONDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 25TH MAGHA, 1943
                      WP(C) NO. 2524 OF 2019
PETITIONER:

            APHSAL K.H.
            AGED 39 YEARS
            S/O. HUSSAIN, PROPRIETOR, NEW S. A. STORES,
            RESIDING AT KOTTATH HOUSE, PATTIKKAD P. O.,
            THRISSUR DISTRICT
            BY ADV SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)

RESPONDENTS:

    1       NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD
            REGIONAL OFFICE, KANDOMKULATHY TOWERS, M.G. ROAD,
            ERNAKULAM - 682 011
    2       NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
            DIVISIONAL OFFICE, PERINCHERY BUILDING ROUND
            NORTH, THRISSUR - 680 001
    3       NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
            THRISSUR BRANCH OFFICE, 2ND FLOOR, PERINCHERY
            BUILDING, ROUND NORTH, THRISSUR - 680 001
    4       THE CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LTD.
            REPRESENTED BY ITS MANGING DIRECTOR, HEAD OFFICE,
            THRISSUR - 680 001
    5       THE CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LTD.
            PATTIKKAD BRANCH P. O., PATTIKKAD, THRISSUR
            DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER - 680
            652
            BY ADV SRI.R.BINDU (SASTHAMANGALAM)


     THIS     WRIT   PETITION    (CIVIL)     HAVING    COME    UP    FOR
ADMISSION     ON   14.02.2022,    THE     COURT   ON   THE    SAME   DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C).No.2524/2019

                                   2




                     P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
                      --------------------------------
                      W.P.(C).No.2524 of 2019
               ----------------------------------------------
            Dated this the 14th day of February, 2022


                            JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P6 award

passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Ernakulam in O.P.

No.178 of 2017. The Permanent Lok Adalat (for short, the

Adalat) dismissed Ext.P1 petition after hearing both sides as

per Ext.P6 order. Ext.P1 is the petition filed before the Adalat

by the petitioner with a prayer to pay a sum of Rs.1 Crore with

interest as the claim submitted by the petitioner based on two

policies. Those policies are marked as Exts.P1 and P2 in

Ext.P6. The Adalat decided the matter and rejected the claim

of the petitioner mainly for the reason that as per Condition

No.10 in Ext.P1 policy, the claim cannot be entertained.

Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition is filed.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

the learned Standing Counsel for respondents 4 and 5. I also

heard the learned counsel appearing for the other

respondents.

W.P.(C).No.2524/2019

3. The main point raised by the petitioner is that even

though two policies were produced before the Adalat as

evident of Exts.P1 and P2, the Adalat considered only Ext.P1

policy and Ext.P2 policy is not considered and discussed by

the Adalat. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the

Bank submitted that as far as the Bank is concerned, there is a

huge amount due to the Bank from the petitioner and

regarding the policy, the same has to be answered by the 1 st

respondent.

4. I perused Ext.P6 award. It is true that the

petitioner produced Exts.P1 and P2 policies. But, on a perusal

of Ext.P6 award, it is clear that the Adalat considered only

Ext.P1 policy. I think this matter can be sent back to the

Adalat for reconsideration based on Ext.P2 policy. Moreover,

this Court, in Assistant Executive Engineer, KSEB, Tvm v.

Consumer Vigilance Centre, Tvm. and Others [2022 (1)

KHC 350], considered the manner in which a petition is to be

considered under Section 22C of the Legal Services

Authorities Act, 1987. After perusing the award, it is clear

that the Adalat has not followed Section 22C of the Act

properly. Therefore a reconsideration by the Adalat is W.P.(C).No.2524/2019

necessary in the facts and circumstances of this case.

Therefore, this writ petition is allowed in the following

manner:

1. Ext.P6 award is set aside.

2. The Permanent Lok Adalat, Ernakulam is

directed to restore O.P. No.178 of 2017 and

consider the same in accordance with law,

based on Ext.P2 policy.

3. Before proceeding with the case, the

Permanent Lok Adalat will follow the principle

laid down by this Court in Assistant

Executive Engineer, KSEB, Tvm v.

Consumer Vigilance Centre, Tvm. and

Others [2022 (1) KHC 350].

sd/-

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JV JUDGE W.P.(C).No.2524/2019

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2524/2019

PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING NO.178/2017 IS DATED 30.06.2017 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 DATED 28.09.2017 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 DATED 04.12.2017 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS 4 AND 5 DATED 28.09.2017 EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS 4 AND 5 DATED 28.11.2017 EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD IS DATED 06.07.2018 RESPONDENT EXHIBITS EXHIBIT R 5 A TRUE COPY OF THE HYPOTHECATION AGREEMENT DATED 21.04.2008 EXHIBIT R5 B TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 18.11.2010