PRIYANKA SENAPATI Vs. CHAIRMAN, PERMANENT LOK ADALAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Sethi, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioners and produces order dtd. 18/5/2022 dismissing as withdrawn on settlement, C.S. no.14 of 2022 (Susama Pandit v. B.M., LIC, Dhenkanal and others) dealt with by Court of Senior Civil Judge, Dhenkanal. None appears on behalf of opposite parties though order sheet reveals opposite party no.5 was represented on 4/9/2022.

(2.) The writ petition was moved on 4/4/2022. Mr. Sethi had submitted impugned is award dtd. 15/2/2022, by which the Permanent Lok Adalat (PLA) directed his client to furnish bank guarantee of Rs.3.5 lakhs to enable her to receive death benefit under life insurance policy, in respect of her deceased husband. Further direction was for paying out proportionate share of the benefit to her mother-in-law. He submitted, insurance law is clear on the nominee being beneficiary, in respect of insurance pay out. In any event, his client does not have the means to furnish bank guarantee of Rs.3.5 lakhs.

(3.) Sub clause (6) in clause (b) under sec. 22A, Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 provides for insurance service to be an utility, over which the Lok Adalat has jurisdiction. It does not appear that there is element of insurance service involved in impugned award. It appears to be adjudication of the contesting claims on the insurance pay out. Whether the Lok Adalat can adjudicate on entitlement to the benefit, on contesting claims, there being no resistance by the insurer in fulfilling the liability on happening of the contingency, is the question to be answered.