Punjab-Haryana High Court
M/S Ahmedgarh Tanker Transport And Anr vs Chairman, Permanent Lok Adalat ... on 15 April, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:049978
Neutral Citation No. 2024:PHHC:049978
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
203
CWP-4459-2015
Date of decision: 15.04.2024
M/S AHMEDGARH TANKER TRANSPORT AND ANOTHER
......Petitioners
VERSUS
CHAIRMAN, PERMANENT LOK ADALAT LUDHIANA AND OTHERS
.......Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ
*****
Present: - Mr. Dinesh Kumar, Advocate for
Mr. Sameer Sachdeva, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate for
Mr. Ravinder Arora, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
*****
VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)
1. The present writ petition has been filed for seeking quashing of
the impugned ex-parte award dated 06.10.2009 passed by the Permanent
Lok Adalat, Ludhiana.
2. It is evident from the order sheet that the Counsel for the
petitioner had been repeatedly seeking adjournments in the matter for no
valid reasons. Today, also a request for pass over has been made, however,
the same is not feasible. The matter has been hence finally heard.
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:049978
3. At the request of the Court, Mr. Dinesh Kumar, Advocate has
thus agreed to argue the matter on merits.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has
argued that the petitioner firm was carrying on the business of transportation
in the City of Ludhiana. In the month of May 2009, the respondent No.2
moved an application under Section 22-C of the Legal Services Authorities
Act, 1987 alleging that respondent No. 3 had booked a consignment of
27.630 MT. Oil with the petitioner vide G.R. No. 26007 dated 25.09.2008
from Kandla (Gujarat) to Rajpura (Punjab). It was alleged that the petitioner-
Transporter had agreed to deliver the said consignment to the consignee i.e.
respondent No.3 in a safe and sound condition, at the agreed upon
destination. The petitioner, however, did not carry the said consignment
with care and caution and that the tanker bearing Registration No. PB-10-
BX-8499 met with an accident on 28.09.2009 near Village Bhai Bhaktaur,
District Bathinda while carrying the said consignment causing destruction of
the consignment to the extent of 19.69 MT oil. A notice to that effect was
sent by respondent No.3 and a claim was also lodged with them, however,
the same was not paid by them. A claim was also submitted to the Insurance
Company. The said claim was settled by the respondent No.2-National
Insurance Company for the sum of Rs. 9,28,223/-. The above mentioned
application under Section 22-C was thereafter filed by the respondent No. 2,
on behalf of respondent No.3, for a claim of Rs. 9,28,233/- alongwith cost
and interest @ 12% per annum from the date of the claim till its actual
payment.
5. He contends that the Permanent Lok Adalat, Ludhiana
proceeded ex-parte against the petitioner, and passed an ex-parte award
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:049978
without resorting to the procedure under Section 22 (C)(4) and 22 (C) (7) of
the Legal Services Authorities, Act, 1987 and that the award in question thus
suffers from the mandatory procedural requirement as laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of "Canara Bank versus G.S.
Jayrama" reported as (2022) 7 SCC 776. The relevant extract of the said
judgment reads as under:-
"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-
Sections (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 accordance with sub-Sections (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."
6. Even though the learned counsel for the respondent made an
attempt to justify the award, however, he could not dispute that the
mandatory procedure under Section 22 (C)(4) to 22-C (7) has not been
followed in the present case.
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:049978
7. I have perused the impugned award dated 06.10.2009 and it is
evident that the mandatory procedure as prescribed under the Legal Services
Authorities Act, 1987 has not been followed.
8. Further, another issue which arose for determination by the
Permanent Lok Adalat, Ludhiana was to whether the proceedings for
seeking recovery from the Transporter could be validly instituted or not.
However, noticing that the mandatory procedural requirement has not been
followed, hence, there is no necessity at this juncture for this Court to
examine the issue on merits any further lest it may cause prejudice to any of
the rights of the contesting parties.
9. The present writ petition is accordingly allowed. The award
dated 06.10.2009 is set aside. The parties are directed to appear before the
Permanent Lok Adalat, Ludhiana on 13.05.2024 whereupon the Permanent
Lok Adalat, Ludhiana shall pass afresh order in the case in accordance with
law and after granting an opportunity of hearing to the respective parties.
(VINOD S. BHARDWAJ)
APRIL 15, 2024 JUDGE
Vishal Sharma
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
4 of 4
