Orissa High Court
Icici Lombard General vs Dhaneswar Kumar Mahanta & .... Opposite ... on 2 May, 2024
Author: S.K. Panigrahi
Bench: S.K. Panigrahi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.23364 of 2019
ICICI Lombard General .... Petitioner(s)
Insurance Co. Ltd., Mumbai
Mr. G.P. Dutta, Adv.
-versus-
Dhaneswar Kumar Mahanta & .... Opposite Party(s)
Anr.
None
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
Order ORDER
No. 02.05.2024
07. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.
2. In filing this Writ Petition, the Petitioner being the
Insurance Company, has challenged the impugned award
dated 02.08.2019/Annexure-1 as well as the order dated
31.07.2019/Annexure-4 passed by the learned Permanent
Lok-Adalat (PUS), Keonjhar in PLA No.07/2019.
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner. Nobody appears
on behalf of the Opposite Party No.1 despite valid service of
notice.
3. The factual scenario of the case as well as submission on
behalf of the Petitioner in brevity remains:-
(i) Due to a motor vehicular accident the Opposite Party
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA
No.1 after lodging an F.I.R. before the Lahunipada Police
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa Station, made a claim application before the
Date: 06-May-2024 14:01:51
Petitioner/Insurance Company.
Page 1 of 4
(ii) Since the Petitioner/Insurance Company did not pay any
attention to the said claim application of the Opposite Party
No.1, the Opposite Party No.1 filed the case vide PLA Case
No.07/2019 before the learned Chairperson, Permanent Lok
Adalat (PUS), Keonjhar claiming compensation of a sum of
Rs.3,00,000/-.
(iii) After hearing the Opposite Party No.1/the complainant
therein the learned Permanent Lok Adalat (PUS), Keonjhar
framed the following issue for consideration:-
"Whether the Petitioner is entitled to get compensation as
claimed in the petition?"
(iv) It is pertinent to mention here that despite service of
notice the Petitioner did not appear before the learned
Permanent Lok Adalat (PUS), Keonjhar in the above noted
PLA Case.
(v) Accordingly, upon considering the aforesaid issue and
hearing the Opposite Party No.1 i.e. the complainant, the
learned Permanent Lok Adalat (PUS), Keonjhar directed the
present Petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.49,711.48 paise
(Rupees Forty-nine thousand seven hundred eleven and
forty-eight paise) to the Opposite Party No.1 towards
medical expenses within a period of two months. It was also
directed therein that if the Petitioner fails to comply with the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA order within the time, the Opposite Party No.1 can approach
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 06-May-2024 14:01:51 the learned Permanent Lok Adalat (PUS), Keonjhar for
execution of the order.
Page 2 of 4
(vi) Thereafter, being aggrieved with the above order the
respondent/Petitioner filed a petition under Order 9, Rule 7
of the C.P.C. for setting aside of the above ex parte order.
Thereafter, upon relying on the judgment of the Supreme
Court in the case of Arjun Singh-Vrs.-Mahendra Kumar and
Ors.1 and hearing the parties concerned, the learned
Permanent Lok Adalat (PUS), Keonjhar observed that the
petition under Order 9 Rule 7 of the C.P.C is not
maintainable when the case is posted for judgment after
conclusion of trial. Accordingly, the said petition of the
Petitioner was rejected. Hence, this Writ Petition.
(vii) Challenging the above orders impugned herein, learned
counsel for the Petitioner/Insurance Company submits that
the Insurance Company was never approached by the
Opposite Party No.1 for insurance benefit and the Opposite
Party No.1 had directly approached the learned Permanent
Lok Adalat (PUS), Keonjhar claiming compensation of a sum
of Rs.3,00,000/-.
(viii) He further submits that there was no conciliation
between the parties before passing of the above noted award.
Apart from the above submissions learned counsel for the
Petitioner/Insurance Company submits that the F.I.R. lodged
by the wife of the Opposite Party No.1 at a belated stage is
Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA not sustainable in the eye of law. There was even no consent
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 06-May-2024 14:01:51
AIR 1964 SC 993
in writing prior to initiation of the above noted PLA
proceeding.
(ix) He, accordingly, prays for allowing this Writ Petition.
4. Considering the submission made on behalf of the
Petitioner/Insurance Company and looking to the factual
scenario of the case, this Court while setting aside the
impugned award dated 02.08.2019/Annexure-1 as well as the
order dated 31.07.2019/Annexure-4 passed by the learned
Permanent Lok-Adalat (PUS), Keonjhar in PLA No.07/2019,
remits the matter to the learned Permanent Lok-Adalat
(PUS), Keonjhar for adjudication of the same afresh. The said
proceeding shall be concluded providing adequate
opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned.
5. The Writ Petition stands disposed of with the above order.
(Dr. S.K. Panigrahi)
Judge
Ayaskanta
Designation: Personal Assistant
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 06-May-2024 14:01:51
