NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD Vs. JAMEELA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE New India Assurance Company challenges the awards passed by the Permanent lok Adalat for Public Utility Services essentially on the ground that the said body had acted without jurisdiction in proceeding to decide a claim petition filed by the injured in a motor accident case, for compensation. Since the contentions raised in these two Writ Petitions are common, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. I will refer to W. P. C. No. 30059/2008, taken as the leading case.

(2.) THE first respondent met with an accident on 26. 11. 2005 when he was walking along the road and a car owned by the second respondent and driven by the third respondent hit him. He sustained serious injuries and he claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 6 lakhs. He filed O. P. No. 465/2007 before the 4th respondent which is the Permanent Lok adalat for Public Utility Services. On receipt of summons from the Permanent Lok Adalat the petitioner entered appearance and disputed the maintainability of the petition. It was contended thatthe Permanent Lok Adalat has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter under s. 22c (8) read with S. 22d of the Legal Services Authorities Act 1987, (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). The claimant and the respondents were not able to come to a settlement. Thereupon the Permanent Lok Adalat proceeded to adjudicate the dispute and by Ext. P3 the claimant was permitted to realise an amount of Rs. 52,000/- from the petitioner, the third respondent before the Permanent Lok Adalat with 9% interest from the date of petition till realisation. This has been challenged in this Writ Petition.

(3.) I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the first respondent. The petitioner contends that the Permanent Lok Adalat is established under s. 22b of the Act and exercises jurisdiction in respect of one or more Public Utility Services. It does not exercise a general jurisdiction and therefore it does have the powers to adjudicate any dispute unless the dispute is in respect of one or more public utility services. 'public utility service' is defined under S. 22 A (b) of the Act and the claim made by the injured or legal representatives of the deceased person, in a petition claiming compensation for injuries suffered in a motor accident, will not be a dispute touching upon the Insurance service as defined under S. 22 A (b) of the Act. Consequently, the Permanent Lok Adalat was bereft of jurisdiction to consider Ext. P1 or to pass an award in the nature of Ext. P3, apparently on the premise that it is entitled to adjudicate a claim petition for compensation, like a Motor accidents Claims Tribunal. In other words, the challenge against the award Ext. P3 is on the ground that it is bereft of jurisdiction.