ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. PRATHAPACHANDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is an insurance company. They are challenging Ext. P4 award of the Permanent Lok Adalath for Public Utility Services, by which the question of payment of compensation for injury sustained by the 1st respondent was adjudicated in exercise of the powers of the Permanent Lok Adalath under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. The Lok Adalath found that the 1st respondent was entitled to an amount of Rs. 31,500/- with 6% interest as compensation for the injuries suffered by him in motor accident and the petitioner insurance company was directed to pay the same as the insurer of the vehicle. The contention arised now before me is that in view of the existence of a criminal case in respect of the same accident, the Permanent Lok Adalath does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate the issue. The petitioner relies on the decision of the Supreme Court in United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Ajay Sinha and Another 2008 SC 996 According to the petitioner in that decision the Supreme Court as held that where ever there exists a criminal case in respect of the subject matter before the Permanent Lok Adalath, the Permanent Lok Adalath shall refuse to exercise jurisdiction. The petitioner therefore submits that Ext. P4 award is liable to be set aside on the ground of want of jurisdiction.

(2.) I have gone through the decision referred to by the learned counsel. I am of opinion that, that decision does not in absolute terms bar the jurisdiction of the Permanent Lok Adalath when there is a criminal case pending in respect of the dispute in question. The operative portion of the judgment contained in paragraph 39 and 40 thereof read thus:

(3.) THAT being so, I am of opinion that if facts and circumstances of the case requires that because of the existence of the criminal case, the Lok Adalath should not exercise jurisdiction it shall not. Party who raises that contention should plead and prove that the existence of facts and circumstances which should prevent the Permanent Lok Adalath from exercising its jurisdiction since there is no automatic ouster of jurisdiction. In this case a written statement was filed by the petitioner before the Permanent Lok Adalath. In the same there is not even a whisper that the Permanent Lok Adalath should not exercise its jurisdiction. As I have said above, in order to prevent the Lok Adalath from exercising the jurisdiction the petitioner should have in its written statement detailed the circumstances which should prevail upon the Permanent Lok Adalath to deny jurisdiction. In other words the petitioner should have pleaded and proved the facts which would oust jurisdiction. On the other hand the petitioner subjected to the jurisdiction of the permanent Lok Adalat and contested the matter on merits on the question of liability and quantum and suffered an adverse order. Having done so, the petitioner cannot now turn around and challenge the jurisdiction of the Permanent Lok Adalath in the matter by raising for the first time in this writ petition question of want of jurisdiction. Therefore I do not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly the same is dismissed.