Kerala High Court
Life Insurance Corporation Of India vs Balan M.P on 3 October, 2024
2024:KER:73629
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON
THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2024 / 11TH ASWINA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 34661 OF 2019
PETITIONERS:
1 LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN, CORPORATE OFFICE,
YOGAKSHEMA BUILDING, JEEVAN BIMA MARG, POST BOX 19953,
MUMBAI-400 021.
2 DIVISIONAL MANAGER, LIC OF INDIA,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE, LIC ROAD, KOZHIKODE-673 001.
3 SENIOR BRANCH MANAGER, LIC OF INDIA,
BRANCH OFFICE-3, LIC BUILDING, HUZUR ROAD,
KOZHIKODE-673 001.
4 SENIOR BRANCH MANAGER, LIC OF INDIA,
BRANCH OFFICE-1, WYNAD ROAD, KOZHIKODE-673 001.
BY ADV KEERTHIVAS GIRI
RESPONDENTS:
1 BALAN M.P.
AGED 70 YEARS
S/O.KANARAN, 'ARCHANA', THIRUTHIYAD, PUTHIYARA (PO),
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN-673 004.
2 V.M.BINDU,
SENIOR BRANCH MANAGER, LIC OF INDIA, BRANCH OFFICE,
LIC BUILDING, HUZUR ROAD, KOZHIKODE-673 001.
3 SUNIL PRAKASH,
SENIOR BRANCH MANAGER, LIC OF INDIA, BRANCH OFFICE-1,
WP(C) NO.34661 OF 2019 : 2 :
2024:KER:73629
WYNAD ROAD, KOZHIKODE-673 001.
BY ADVS.
SRI.R.SUDHISH
SMT.M.MANJU
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
03.10.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO.34661 OF 2019 : 3 :
2024:KER:73629
HARISANKAR V. MENON, J.
------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.34661 of 2019
-----------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 3rd day of October, 2024
JUDGMENT
The petitioners have filed this writ petition
challenging Ext.P10 proceedings issued by the Permanent
Lok Adalat, Kozhikode.
2. Bare facts necessary for the disposal of this writ
petition are as under:-
The 1st respondent herein had taken two insurance
polices from the petitioners herein bearing
Nos.790937504 and 794770042. Of the above two
policies, on the first one maturing, the amounts payable
2024:KER:73629
to the 1st respondent herein was paid. However, the
petitioners later realised that an amount of Rs.1,46,169/-
(Rupees One lakh forty six thousand one hundred and
sixty nine only) was paid to the 1st respondent in excess
of his eligibility. There upon the petitioners requested
the 1st respondent to adjust the above amount from the
amounts payable upon the 2nd policy maturing on
28.03.2019. Insofar as the 1st respondent did not accept
the said request, the petitioners sought to invoke the
provisions under Section 22 of the Legal Services
Authorities Act, 1987 (for short, 'the Act'), by filing an
appropriate application before the Permanent Lok Adalat.
It may straight away be noticed that the aforesaid two
policies were taken by the 1st respondent from two
different branches of the Life Insurance Corporation.
2024:KER:73629
3. The Permanent Lok Adalat, by the impugned
proceedings at Ext.P10 arrived at a conclusion that the
petitioner is not entitled to recover the amount. Finding
thus, the stand of the 1st respondent stood accepted by
the Permanent Lok Adalat.
4. It is challenging the said proceedings at Ext.P10
that the captioned writ petition is filed by the
petitioners.
5. I have heard Sri. G. Keerthivas, the learned
Counsel for the petitioners as well as Sri. R. Sudhish, the
learned Counsel for the respondents.
6. Sri. Keerthivas, the learned Counsel for the
petitioners would point out that the proceedings
culminating in the issue of Ext.P10 is without following
2024:KER:73629
the procedure prescribed under Section 22 C of the Act
and therefore, going by the judgment rendered by the
Apex Court in Canara Bank v. G.S. Jayaram [2022 (7)
SCC 776], Ext.P10 cannot be sustained. On the other
hand, Sri. R. Sudhish, the learned Counsel for the
respondents would point out that the petitioners are not
justified in taking such a contention after having
participated in the entire proceedings, leading to the
issue of Ext.P10.
7. I have considered the rival submissions as well
as the connected records.
8. It is noticed that the 1st respondent approached
the Permanent Lok Adalat under the provisions under
Section 22-C of the Act. The Apex Court in Canara
Bank v. G.S. Jayaram (supra), has considered an almost
2024:KER:73629
identical situation and has held as under:-
"33. We must now address the first issue
i.e. whether the conciliation proceedings
before the Permanent Lok Adalats are
mandatory before it can decide a dispute
on its merits.
34. This issue is clearly resolved from a
bare reading of Section 22-C. Section 22-C
provides a step-by-step scheme on how a
matter is to proceed before the Permanent
Lok Adalat. The first step is the filing of
the application which ousts the jurisdiction
of other civil courts, in accordance with
sub-section (1) and (2). The second step is
the parties filing requisite submissions and
documents before the Permanent Lok
Adalat, in accordance with sub-section (3).
On the completion of the third step to its
satisfaction, the Permanent Lok Adalat can
move to the fourth step of attempting
conciliation between the parties, in
2024:KER:73629
accordance with sub-section (4), (5) and (6).
Subsequently, in the fifth step in
accordance with sub-section (7), the
Permanent Lok Adalat has to draw up
terms of settlement on the basis of the
conciliation proceedings, and propose them
to the parties. If the parties agree, the
Permanent Lok Adalat has to pass an award
on the basis of the agreed upon terms of
settlement. Only if the parties fail to reach
an agreement on the fifth step, can the
Permanent Lok Adalat proceed to the final
step and decide the dispute on its merits."
(underlining supplied)
9. The learned Counsel for the 1 st respondent
would point out that in the afore judgment of the Apex
Court, there is a slight difference insofar as the appellant
therein-Cananra Bank-was set ex parte before the
Permanent Lok Adalat. However, I notice that the said
2024:KER:73629
question is also considered by the Apex Court in
paragraph 36 of the judgment holding that even if the
opposite party is not appearing, the Permanent Lok
Adalat is not entitled to dispense with the conciliation
proceedings straight away and adjudicate the dispute
under Section 22-C (8). In the light of the above
principles laid down by the Apex Court, in the case at
hand, the 1st respondent had appeared and so much so it
was the duty of the Permanent Lok Adalat, to have
referred the matter for a conciliation attempt as
prescribed under Section 22-C (4). I notice that in the
case at hand, before issuing the proceedings at Ext.P10,
the Permanent Lok Adalat has not ventured to attempt a
conciliation as prescribed by the statute. In the said
circumstances, Ext.P10, cannot be sustained.
2024:KER:73629
10. I also notice that this Court on 26.07.2023 had
called for a report from the Permanent Lok Adalat as to
whether before issuing the proceedings at Ext.P10, any
conciliation attempt had been attempted. Pursuant
thereto, the Permanent Lok Adalat, by a communication
dated 29.07.2023, has reported that before issuing the
proceedings at Ext.P10, no conciliation proceedings have
been finalized, though the matter was posted for
conciliation on two posting dates.
11. In the above circumstances, it is evident that
Ext.P10 is issued without attempting the conciliation as
prescribed by the statute.
12. Resultantly, Ext.P10 issued by the Permanent
Lok Adalat would stand set aside. The Permanent Lok
Adalat, is directed to consider the issue afresh, attempt a
2024:KER:73629
conciliation as prescribed by the statue and then proceed
accordingly. Taking note of the fact that, the 1 st
respondent is a senior citizen aged 75 years, there will
be a further direction to the Permanent Lok Adalat to
finalize the proceedings as above within a period of six
months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of
this judgment.
Sd/-
HARISANKAR V. MENON
JUDGE
SRJ
2024:KER:73629
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 34661/2019
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF MONEY BACK POLICY
BEARING NO.790937504.
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF BIMA GOLD POLICY
BEARING NO.794770042.
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE PROPOSAL DATED
30.03.2008 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE CONSENT LETTER
DATED 20.05.2006 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF LETTER DATED 21.03.2019
SENT BY THE PETITIONER CORPORATION TO THE 1ST
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF LETTER DATED 23.03.2019
RECEIVED FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF OP NO.31/2019 ON THE
FILES OF THE PERMANENT LOK ADALATH, KOZHIKODE.
EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF WRITTEN VERSION FILED
BY THE PETITIONER CORPORATION IN THE ORIGINAL
PETITION.
EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF ADDITIONAL WRITTEN
VERSION FILED BY THE PETITIONER CORPORATION IN
THE ORIGINAL PETITION.
EXHIBIT P10 A TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
31.10.2019 IN OP NO.31/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE
PERMANENT LOK ADALATH, KOZHIKODE.
Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE FIXED DEPOSIT RECEIPT DATED
17.03.2023 ISSUED BY UNION BANK OF INDIA IN
FAVOUR OF M/S LIC OF INDIA.
2024:KER:73629
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS
Exhibit R1(a) COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT
TO THE PETITIONER DATED 27.3.2019.
