Life Insurance Corporation of India v. V. Reji

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN** **FRIDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JUNE 2016/13TH JYAISHTA, 1938H** ## **WP(C).No. 11731 of 2007 (V)** **----------------------------** ## **PETITIONER/RESPONDENT :** **-------------------------------------------** **THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER, LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, NEAR OVER BRIDGE JN., M.G.ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.S.EASWARAN** ## **RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:** **----------------------------------------------** **V.REJI, W/O.LATE CAPT. C.S.ANIL PRAKASH, D/561, ATHIYARAVILAKATHU VEEDU, ARAYALLOR, THIRUMALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **BY ADV. SRI.BLAZE K.JOSE** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **sts** ## **WP(C).NO.11731/2007** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** - **P1 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE PERMANENT LOK ADALATH.** - **P2 COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN O.P.NO.18 OF 2007 BEFORE THE LOK ADALATH** - **P3 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 7/3/2007 IN O.P.NO.18 OF 2007 OF THE PERMANENT LOK ADALATH.** ## **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL** **/TRUE COPY/** **P.A.TO JUDGE** **sts** ## **ANU SIVARAMAN, J.** = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = ## **W.P.(C).No.11731 of 2007** = = = = = = = = == = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 3rd day of June, 2016 ## JUDGMENT 1.The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P3 order passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Thiruvananthapuram. It is contended that the matter was taken up before the Adalat at the pre-litigation stage. The respondent had claimed that her husband was a holder of LIC policy and that after his death 'double accident benefit' was not paid. It was her contention that the policy proposal was accepted and premium was collected inclusive of 'double accident benefit'. - 2.Appearing on notice, the petitioner Corporation contended in the Adalat that though in the proposal dated 20.08.1997 'double accident benefit' was part of the policy condition and premium was initially accepted including the said benefit, a mistake was noticed on 04.01.2003 and it was rectified by refunding the extra premium paid for 'double accident W.P.(C).No.11731/07 **2 '** benefit'. It is therefore contended that the said benefit was not available in terms of the policy in question and therefore the respondent was not entitled for any amounts on 'double accident benefit'. 3.The Adalat heard the parties and came to the conclusion that the 'double accident benefit' was not available on the policy, since the extra premium collected in respect thereof has already been refunded to the policy holder. However, it went on to hold that the manner in which the matter was dealt with by the petitioner, Corporation 'should not go unpunished'. On that ground, considering the dereliction of duty allegedly committed by the officials of the Corporation, an amount of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees twenty five thousand only) was directed to be paid as compensation to the claimant within one month from the date of the award by the respondent. This award is challenged by the Life Insurance Corporation on the ground that the dispute, which was in seizin of the W.P.(C).No.11731/07 **3 '** Permanent Lok Adalat, stood resolved in favour of the Corporation and in the above circumstances, the direction for payment of compensation was completely without jurisdiction. - 4.It is urged that in terms of Section 22C of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, the power of the Permanent Lok Adalat, when an application is made for settlement of the dispute, is to direct pleadings to be placed and if their parties fail to reach an agreement, the Adalat is to decide the dispute. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the instant case, the Adalat has decided the dispute in favour of the petitioner. Thereafter an award directing payment of compensation has been passed, which is unsustainable. - 5.Heard Sri.S.Easwaran, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Blaze K Jose, learned counsel for the respondent. W.P.(C).No.11731/07 **4 '** 6.The question arising in this petition is with regard to jurisdiction of this Court in a matter arising under Section 22C of the Legal Services Authorities Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of this Court reported in **Bar Council of India v.Union of India** [(2012) 8 SCC 243] to contend that a party who has a grievance against an award passed by a Permanent Lok Adalat, it is open to that party to raise it in a writ petition under Articles 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner would also rely on the decisions in **Rajeswary v. Sooraj** [2003(3)KLT 936] to contend that the powers of this Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India are not barred in the case of an award under the Legal Services Authorities Act. 7. The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand relied on the decisions reported in **Ali v. State of Kerala** [2006(1) KLT 205] and **Thomas v. Thomas Job** [2005(3) KLT 1042 (SC)] to contend that no challenge would be W.P.(C).No.11731/07 **5 '** maintainable under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India against an award of a Permanent Lok Adalat. Section 22(C) of the Legal Services Authorities Act reads as follows:- — “22C. **Cognizance of cases by Permanent Lok Adalat.** (1) Any party to a dispute may, before the dispute is brought before any court, make an application to the Permanent Lok Adalat for the settlement of dispute: Provided that the Permanent Lok Adalat shall not have jurisdiction in respect of any matter relating to an offence not compoundable under any law: Provided further that the Permanent Lok Adalat shall also not have jurisdiction in the matter where the value of the property in dispute exceeds ten lakh rupees: Provided also that the Central Government, may, by notification, increase the limit of ten lakh rupees specified in the second proviso in consultation with the Central Authority. (2) After an application is made under sub-section (1) to the Permanent Lok Adalat, no party to that application shall invoke jurisdiction of any court in the same dispute. (3) Where an application is made to a Permanent Lok Adalat under sub-section (1), it— (a) shall direct each party to the application to file before it a written statement, stating therein the facts and nature of dispute under the application points or issues in such dispute and grounds W.P.(C).No.11731/07 **6 '** relied in support of, or in opposition to, such points or issues, as the case may be, and such party may supplement such statement with any document and other evidence which such party deems appropriate in proof of such facts and grounds and shall send a copy of such statement together with a copy of such document and other evidence, if any, to each of the parties to the application; (b) may require any party to the application to file additional statement before it at any stage of the conciliation proceedings; (c) shall communicate any document or statement received by it from any party to the application to the other party, to enable such other party to present reply thereto. (4) When statement, additional statement and reply, if any, have been filed under sub-section (3), to the satisfaction of the Permanent Lok Adalat, it shall conduct conciliation proceedings between the parties to the application in such manner as it thinks appropriate taking into account the circumstances of the dispute. (5) The Permanent Lok Adalat shall, during conduct of conciliation proceedings under sub-section (4), assist the parties in their attempt to reach an amicable settlement of the dispute in an independent and impartial manner. (6) It shall be the duty of every party to the application to cooperate in good faith with the Permanent Lok Adalat in conciliation of the dispute relating to the application and to comply with the direction of the Permanent Lok Adalat to produce evidence and other related documents before it. W.P.(C).No.11731/07 **7** **==> picture [3 x 3] intentionally omitted <==** (7) When a Permanent Lok Adalat, in the aforesaid conciliation proceedings, is of opinion that there exist elements of settlement in such proceedings which may be acceptable to the parties, it may formulate the terms of a possible settlement of the dispute and give to the parties concerned for their observations and in case the parties reach at an agreement on the settlement of the dispute, they shall sign the settlement agreement and the Permanent Lok Adalat shall pass an award in terms thereof and furnish a copy of the same to each of the parties concerned. (8) Where the parties fail to reach at an agreement under sub-section (7), the Permanent Lok Adalat shall, if the dispute does not relate to any offence, decide the dispute.” 8. The power of the Adalat, in cases where parties do not arrive at a settlement, is to decide the dispute. The permanent Lok Adalat under the Legal Services Authorities Act is a mechanism for alternate dispute redressal. Powers of the Adalat is provided in the Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner also brought to my notice the decision of the Apex Court in **Life Insurance Corporation v. Suresh Kumar** [2011(7) SCC 491] wherein it has been held that the Permanent Lok Adalat is W.P.(C).No.11731/07 **8 '** not a regular court authorized to adjudicate the disputes between the parties on merits. It has no jurisdiction to decide any lis, as such, between the parties even where the attempt to arrive at an agreed settlement between the parties has failed. It is submitted that in the instant case, the dispute having been decided in favour of the petitioner Corporation on the finding that there was no liability on the Corporation to pay the 'double accident benefit', the Lok Adalat could not have issued an award of compensation. Going by the decisions adverted to above and the provisions of the Act, I am of the opinion that the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is well founded. The writ petition is ordered setting aside Ext.P3. However, in the facts of the case, I am of the opinion that the right of the respondent to take recourse to any other remedy available to her cannot be negated. The right of the respondent to take up the matter before any other forum available is therefore left open. The time taken in agitating the matter before the **9** W.P.(C).No.11731/07 **'** Permanent Lok Adalat and before this Court shall be taken into account in case the respondent approaches any other forum in accordance with law. sd/- **Anu Sivaraman, Judge** sj3/6