NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. TULSI BANNERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent no. 4.

(2.) Despite steps taken on three occasions to effect service of notice upon respondent no. 3 owner of the Vehicle in question, the same could not be effected. On 16.02.2017 learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court that in an analogous matter in WP (C) No. 3032 of 2010 which arose from the same impugned order dated 06.03.2010 in Permanent Lok Adalat Case Nos. 905/2007 also, despite substituted service taken in terms of Order 5, Rule 20 of Civil Procedure Code, respondent no. 3 being the owner of the vehicle in question failed to appear. Having taken note of the significant facts arising out of two Permanent Lok Adalat Case Nos. 903 of 2007 and 905 of 2007 through the same impugned order, it was observed that no further steps is required to be taken for service of notice on the said respondent. Thereafter, the matter has been taken up today.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits at the outset that the award dated 06.03.2010 (Annexure-2) impugned herein suffers from the same legal infirmity, which has been considered in W.P. (C) No. 3032 of 2010 vide judgment dated 15.09.2016 passed by this Court in respect of Permanent Lok Adalat Case No. 905 of 2007 analogous to the present Permanent Lok Adalat Case No. 903 of 2007. It is submitted that this Court has been pleased to quash the impugned award giving liberty to the respondent-claimants to move before the Competent Tribunal for adjudication of the dispute, which may decide such claim, if permissible in law. It is submitted that the instant matter can also be disposed of in the light of the said judgment.