ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. Vs. SUNIL KUMAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Insurance Company is the petitioner in the first Case, which is aggrieved by the order and the award dated 29.12.2006 and 30.12.2006, respectively passed by the Court of learned Court of Permanent Lok Adalat in P.L.A. Case No. 19 of 2006, whereby a compensation of Rs. 6,49,000/- plus interest at the rate of 12 per cent thereon has been awarded in favour of the respondents-claimants in the first petition. In the second writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 2662 of 2007, the claimant-petitioner has come before this Court seeking enhancement of the award granted by the Permanent Lok Adalat as aforesaid.

(2.) The petitioner Insurance company assails the award on the ground that the learned Permanent Lok Adalat failed to follow the procedure prescribed under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 by not framing terms of settlement under Section 22(C), 4 to 7 of the Act, 1987 and offering to the rival parties to arrive at a compromise or agreed settlement over the same. It straightway proceeded to decide the dispute on merits by only observing that the parties have failed to conciliate. It is submitted that the requirement of law under the relevant provisions as referred to hereinabove and upheld by the decision of this Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Md. Anjar Alam & Ors. in W.P. (C) No. 6971 of 2007 vide judgment dated 02.11.2012 has not been followed by the Permanent Lok Adalat before proceeding to decide the dispute on merits.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner has also relied on the judgment rendered by single Bench of this Court in W.P. (C) No. 1449 of 2008 dated 09.04.2009 in the case of State Bank of India, Dhanbad Vs. State of Jharkhand as well as the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Kutchery Road, Ranchi vs. Bodya Oraon and Anr in W.P. (C) No. 1975 of 2007 dated 30.04.2012, which has also been relied upon in the aforesaid judgment. The aforesaid judgment dated 02.11.2012 clearly laid down that the contours of the powers and jurisdiction of the Permanent Lok Adalat in deciding the dispute in respect of Motor Vehicle Accident claim cases under the provisions of the Legal Services Authorities Act. It is further submitted that this was a case where the claims were hotly contested on merits as well since the driver of the offending vehicle in question did not have valid driving licence at the time when accident took place. The driving licence had already expired and it was subsequently renewed on 07.07.2004. The findings of the learned Permanent Lok Adalat in para-11 of the judgment on that issue is totally contrary to the legal position as under Section 15 of the Motor Vehicle Act. The Driving License has to be renewed within 30 days of expiry and only then it will be deemed to be renewed from the date of expiry. However, learned Permanent Lok Adalat in the facts held totally opposite although the renewal did not take place within 30 days of the expiry of the said Driving License.