BHOOPESH Vs. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether the Permanent Lok Adalat constituted under Section 22B of the Legal Services Authorities, Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') has jurisdiction to entertain a claim for compensation under the provisions of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is the question to be considered in these cases. The learned Single Judge has held that the Permanent Lok Adalat under Section 22B of the Act has no such jurisdiction and hence the appeal. (The decision of the learned Single Judge is reported in New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Jameela, 2009 1 KerLT 153, Since the same issue was pending before the learned Single Judge in other writ petitions, those cases also have been tagged along with the appeal.

(2.) Permanent Lok Adalat is a new concept introduced under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, by Act 37 of 2002. The Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 was enacted to constitute Legal Services Authorities for providing free and competent legal service to the weaker sections of the society to ensure that opportunities for securing justice are not denied to any citizen by reason of economic or other disabilities, and to organize Lok Adalats to secure that the operation of the legal system promotes justice on a basis of equal opportunity. The source of Inspiration and the obligation is Article 39A of the Constitution of India, which reads as follows:

(3.) Lok Adalat is an old form of adjudicating system prevailed in ancient India. The expression literally means 'people court'. People find solution by themselves, appropriately aided by lawmen and elders, It provides for alternative resolution of disputes, It has been found to be viable, economic, efficient and informal. Parties to the dispute directly interact with the Presiding Officer and through such informal discussions, arrive at a settlement. The compromise or settlement is made an award of the Lok Adalat which has the status and force of a decree under the Code of Civil Procedure. There is no rancour to any parties since both parties win and none goes as vanquished. Thus unless there is compromise or settlement between the parties, the Lok Adalat cannot pass an award and the case has to go back to the court or the parties will have to be advised to seek their remedy in a court of competent jurisdiction, in case the latter is a pre-litigation adalat. In that background, it was thought that at least in the case of disputes pertaining to notified public utilities, designated Lok Adalat can be given the jurisdiction to decide the disputes involving a property dispute and valued upto Rs. 10 lakhs in the event of the parties failing to reach a settlement despite the conciliation and Chapter VI-A was introduced by way of an amendment comprising of Sections 22A to 22E Section 22A deals mainly with the definition of public utility service, which reads as follows: