DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NIC, LTD Vs. ASHISH KUMAR KANTHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Mishra, learned senior advocate appears on behalf of petitioner insurance company. He submits, the insured was not a person eligible to seek alternate dispute resolution from the Permanent Lok Adalat (PLA). He refers to, inter alia, the preamble and sec. 12 in Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 to submit, the alternate dispute resolution forum was established to provide justice to weaker Sec. of the society. He draws attention to impugned award dtd. 31/10/2019 made by the PLA in favour of the insured, being a company with authorized capital of Rs.2.00 crores and paid up capital of Rs.1.76 crores. Such a party went to the PLA and said that there should be adjudication on repudiation of the claim. The PLA, without following procedure provided for adjudication by Courts, passed impugned award.

(2.) In keeping with object of the Act, organization and establishment of Lok Adalats and Permanent Lok Adalats, he submits with reference to sec. 12 and rule 16 in Orissa State Legal Services Authority Rules, 1996, it is legal services offered by State to every person, whose annual income from all sources does not exceed three lakhs rupees. That is why, inter alia, Permanent Lok Adalats were established. He lays emphasis on term 'Lok' to submit, it must be a person entitled to legal services, being member of weaker Sec. of the society, who is entitled to approach the PLA. Opposite parties may be corporations or banks but a corporation with substantial financial presence cannot take advantage of provisions in the Act to bypass adjudication in Court. He submits, it is irrelevant that value of the property has been increased to Rs.1.00 crore, from initially legislated value of Rs.10.00 lakhs.

(3.) Mr. Roy, learned advocate appears on behalf of opposite party no.1 and relies on judgment dtd. 19/5/2022 of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal no.3872 of 2022 (Canara Bank v. G.S. Jayarama), paragraphs-18, 24 and 30. On query from Court Mr. Roy submits, in the case, neither the preamble nor sec. 12 was under consideration by the Supreme Court.