Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India and Another vs Most. Mohini

Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.—The petitioner, in this writ petition, has prayed for setting aside the award dated 28th August, 2007 passed by Permanent Lok Adalat, Hazaribagh in P.L.A. No. 1 of 2006, whereby learned Permanent Lok Adalat has directed the opposite parties/petitioners to pay Rs. 5.00 lacs (rupees five lacs) to the applicant/respondent as insurance claim within two months.

The said award has been assailed broadly on the ground that the Permanent Lok Adalat has got no jurisdiction to pass the impugned award and that the Permanent Lok Adalat has also not considered the facts, materials and evidences properly and on that ground also, the award is vitiated.

Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in support of his contention has relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Another Vs. Jalour Singh and Others, and unreported judgment of the Supreme Court in S.L.P (C) No. 17758 of 2006 (United India insurance Ltd. v. Ajay Sinha and Anr.).

I have heard learned Counsel and perused the said decisions and also the Impugned award.

So far as the first contention of the petitioner is concerned, Section 22(C)(8) provides that if the parties failed to reach at an agreement under Sub-section (7), the Permanent Lok Adalat shall, if the dispute does not relate to any offence, decide the dispute.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that a dispute in the said section does not mean the dispute of the nature, which has been in controversy between the parties. In this case, the parties were not in agreement and they were contesting the claim and any contested claim cannot be adjudicated upon and decided by the Permanent Lok Adalat under the said provision of Section 22(C)(8). Learned Counsel submitted that the judgment passed in Ajay Sinha''s case (Supra) clearly holds the said view. The decision of the Apex Court in Jalour Singh''s case (Supra) is also on the point that Lok Adalats have no adjudicatory or judicial functions. Their functions relate to conciliation and must be based on compromise or settlement.

I have gone through the said decisions of the Supreme Court, but in none of the decisions it has been held that the Permanent Lok Adalat u/s 22(C)(8) cannot decide a dispute. In Ajay Sinha''s case (Supra), the Supreme Court has cautioned against the exercise of such jurisdiction by Permanent Lok Adalat, but has not concluded that Permanent Lok Adalats have no jurisdiction to decide any dispute u/s 22(C)(8). Relevant conclusion has been arrived in Para-40 of the said judgment, which is reproduced herein below:

We must guard against construction of a statute which would confer such a wide power in the Permanent Lok Adalat having regard to Sub-section (8) of Section 22-C of the Act. The Permanent Lok Adalat must at the outset formulate the questions. We however, do not intend to lay down a law, as at present advised, that Permanent Lok Adalat would refuse to exercise its jurisdiction to entertain such cases but emphasize that if must exercise its power with due care and caution. It must not give an impression to any of the disputants that it from the very beginning has an adjudicatory role to play in relation to its jurisdiction without going into the statutory provisions and restrictions imposed thereunder.

(sic) Neither in Jalour Singh''s case (Supra) nor Ajay Sinha''s case (Supra) it has been held that the Permanent Lok Adalats have no jurisdiction to decide a dispute under Sub-section (8) of Section 22(C) of the Act.

So far as the petitioners'' second contention is petitioner is concerned, learned Counsel submitted that the Permanent Lok Adalat has not considered and appreciated the facts and materials properly while giving the impugned award.

On perusal of the impugned award, I find that the Permanent Lok Adalat has discussed the points raised by the parties and has also considered the materials and documents produced in course of hearing. Whether the said evidence has been properly appraised or not is an issue not to be adjudicated upon and decided in writ jurisdiction of this Court. I, therefore, find no merit in this writ petition, which is, accordingly, dismissed.