Priyanka Senapati And Another vs Chairman
2022 Latest Caselaw 3284 Ori

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                            W.P.(C) No.6284 of 2022
                            (Through hybrid mode)

        Priyanka Senapati and another           ....          Petitioners

                                               Mr. N.K. Sethi, Advocate

                                   -versus-

        Chairman, Permanent Lok Adalat          ....     Opposite Parties
        (PUC), Dhenkanal and others


                                                                 None


                   CORAM: JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA
                                   ORDER

Order                             15.07.2022
No.
 3.      1.      Mr. Sethi, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioners

and produces order dated 18th May, 2022 dismissing as withdrawn on

settlement, C.S. no.14 of 2022 (Susama Pandit v. B.M., LIC,

Dhenkanal and others) dealt with by Court of Senior Civil Judge,

Dhenkanal. None appears on behalf of opposite parties though order

sheet reveals opposite party no.5 was represented on 4th September,

2022.

2. The writ petition was moved on 4th April, 2022. Mr. Sethi had

submitted impugned is award dated 15th February, 2022, by which the

Permanent Lok Adalat (PLA) directed his client to furnish bank

// 2 //

guarantee of Rs.3.5 lakhs to enable her to receive death benefit under

life insurance policy, in respect of her deceased husband. Further

direction was for paying out proportionate share of the benefit to her

mother-in-law. He submitted, insurance law is clear on the nominee

being beneficiary, in respect of insurance pay out. In any event, his

client does not have the means to furnish bank guarantee of Rs.3.5

lakhs.

3. Sub clause (6) in clause (b) under section 22 A, Legal Services

Authorities Act, 1987 provides for insurance service to be an utility,

over which the Lok Adalat has jurisdiction. It does not appear that

there is element of insurance service involved in impugned award. It

appears to be adjudication of the contesting claims on the insurance

pay out. Whether the Lok Adalat can adjudicate on entitlement to the

benefit, on contesting claims, there being no resistance by the insurer

in fulfilling the liability on happening of the contingency, is the

question to be answered.

4. Text of order dated 4th July, 2022 is reproduced below.

"1. Mr. Sethi, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioners and submits, under challenge is judgment dated 15th February, 2022 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat (PLA). Mr. Mishra, learned advocate appears on behalf of opposite party no.5 and submits, he has instructions that there has been settlement between the

// 3 //

parties. Mr. Sethi confirms there has been settlement but, prays for directions to set aside the award, for the settlement to be worked out.

2. Parties are free to produce the settlement and thereupon heard for purpose of disposal of the writ petition.

3. List on 11th July, 2022."

5. Court has already recorded above that there does not appear to

be resistance by the insurer in fulfilling the liability on happening of

the contingency. The suit stands dismissed on settlement out of Court.

Therefore, there is no dispute regarding claiming benefit under the

policy. Impugned award dated 15th February, 2022 is set aside and

quashed. On claim made by petitioner, the insurance company is

expected to act in accordance with law.

6. The writ petition is disposed of.

(Arindam Sinha) Judge Sks