Postmaster General, Central Region, Kochi and Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Aluva Post Division and Post Master, Piravom Post Office, Ernakulam v. Sisy Nishad Karavattе, Air India Ltd. and Permanent Lok Adalat (for Public Utility Services)

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 6[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 17TH MAGHA, 1945** ## **WP(C) NO. 30355 OF 2015** ## **PETITIONERS:** 1 POSTMASTER GENERAL O/O THE POSTMASTER GENERAL, CEBTRAL REGION, KCHI-682 011 2 TH SENIOR SUPERINTENDANT OF POST OFFICES OFFICE OF THE SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES, ALUVA POSTAL DIVISION 3 POST MASTER PIRAVOM POST OFFICE, ERNAKULAM-686 664 BY ADVS. ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL SRI.JAISHANKAR V.NAIR, CGC ## **RESPONDENTS:** 1 SISY NISHAD KARAVATTE PANALICKAL HOUSE, EZHAKKARANADU (S) P.O., PUTHENCRUZ VIA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 682 038 2 AIR INDIA LTD., COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPOR LIMITED,NEDUMBASSERRY, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER-683 585 3 PERMANENT LOK ADALAT (FOR PUBLIC UTILITY SERVICES), GROUND FLOOR, ADR CENTRE, DISTRICT COURT ANNEX PREMISES, KALOOR, KOCHI – 682 017 - REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN BY ADVS. SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS, SC FOR R2 SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN SRI.KURYAN THOMAS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 30355 OF 2015 2 **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J. -----------------------------W.P.(C)No. 30355 of 2015 ---------------------------------------------Dated this the 06[th] day of February, 2024** ## **JUDGMENT** This writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P7 award dated 27.07.2015 in O.P.No.158/2012 on the files of the Permanent Lok Adalat, Ernakulam (for short, Lok Adalat). Ext.P7 is a proceedings initiated by the Lok Adalat based on a petition filed by the 1[st] respondent under Section 22C(1) read with Section 22A(b)(ii) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (for short 'Act 1987'). The case of the 1[st] respondent is that in connection with her proposed employment abroad, she, on 07.12.2011, had sent the originals of her Secondary School Leaving Certificate and Predegree Certificate along with her appointment letter, WP(C) NO. 30355 OF 2015 3 from Piravom Post Office to Malasia by registered post. But the registered postal article did not reached the destination, with the result, the 1[st] respondent’s job visa for a period of 3 years was cancelled. Apart from that, the originals of her certificates also lost. Although the 1[st] respondent forwarded a complaint to the Post Master General and Superintendent of Post Officers by registered post, she did not receive any reply is the submission. It is further submitted that her repeated enquiry at the office of the Post office concerned did not also yield any reply. Therefore, the 1[st] respondent claimed an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- for the loss of employment abroad and also for the inconvenience which she was subjected to, due to the missing of her certificates. On receipt of notice, the petitioners appeared and filed a written statement to the effect WP(C) NO. 30355 OF 2015 4 that the postal articles in question was sent to the Airport Transit Mail Office, Delhi in Flight No.A1 466 on 09.12.2011 and that enquiries were in progress to trace out the postal articles. Petitioners filed another written statement also stating that the disputed postal articles did not reached the destination. Thereafter the Lok Adalat conducted statutory conciliation under Section 22C(4) of Act 1987 and no settlement could be arrived at is the finding. Therefore, the case was taken up under Section 22C(8) of Act 1987. Consequently, Ext.P7 award is passed by which the petitioners are found entitled to claim a compensation of Rs.25,000/- and cost of the proceedings. Aggrieved by Ext.P7, this Writ petition is filed. 2. Heard the learned Central Government Counsel, Adv.Jaishankar V. Nair appearing for the WP(C) NO. 30355 OF 2015 5 petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2. 3. The main contention raised by the petitioners is that the proceedings itself is not maintainable before the Lok Adalat. The counsel also relied on the judgment of this Court in **Assistant Executive Engineer, KSEB, Tvm and Another v. Consumer Vigilance Centre, Tvm and others** [2022 (1) KHC 350] and submitted that the petition is not properly considered in accordance with Section 22C of Act 1987. The counsel also relied on Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 in which it is stated that the Government shall not incur any liability by reason of the loss, misdelivery or delay of, or damage to, any postal article in course of transmission by post, except in so far as such liability may in express terms by 6 WP(C) NO. 30355 OF 2015 undertaken by the Central Government as hereinafter provided; and no officer of the Post Office shall incur any liability by reason of any such loss, misdelivery, delay or damage, unless he has caused the same fraudulently or by his willful act or default. 4. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioners and the respondents. This Court in **Assistant Executive Engineer** 's case (supra) considered the duty of the Lok Adalat in detail. The stage at which the Lok Adalat can decide a dispute is also considered by this Court. This Court observed that, when the procedure adopted by the Lok Adalat is not correct and is against the provisions of Act 1987, the High Court will be justified in setting aside the award. The relevant portion of the above judgment is extracted hereunder: WP(C) NO. 30355 OF 2015 7 “6. Section 22C (4) says that 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. Section 22C(5) says that the Permanent Lok Adalat shall, during the conduct of conciliation proceedings under subsection (4), assist the parties in their attempt to reach an amicable settlement of the dispute in an independent and impartial manner. Section 22C(6) says that 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. Section 22C(7)says that, 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 WP(C) NO. 30355 OF 2015 8 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. Thereafter, Section 22C(8) says that, 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. Therefore, a reading of Section 22(C) will show that the Permanent Lok Adalat should reach the stage of Section 22C(7)of the Act 1987 for deciding a dispute under Section 22C(8). 7. In other words the Permanent Lok Adalat can decide the dispute only after reaching the following stages mentioned in Section 22C of the Act 1987. (a) Permanent Lok Adalat is of the opinion that there exist elements of the settlement. (b) If the Permanent Lok Adalat found that there are elements of settlement in such proceedings which may be acceptable to the parties, the Permanent Lok Adalat shall formulate the terms of a possible settlement of the dispute. (c) Thereafter the Permanent Lok Adalat shall give the terms of the possible settlement formulated by it to the parties concerned for their observations. WP(C) NO. 30355 OF 2015 9 (d) If the parties fail to reach an agreement under sub-section (7) of Section 22C, then only the Permanent Lok Adalat can decide the dispute and that also if the dispute does not relate to any offence. 8. So it is clear that the Permanent Lok Adalat can decide the dispute only after the above four stages. The Heading of Chapter VIA of the Act 1987 itself says that "PRE-LITIGATION CONCILIATION AND SETTLEMENT". Therefore the enthusiasm of the Permanent Lok Adalat should be to settle the matter through conciliation and not to decide the dispute on merit. For deciding a dispute on merit, first of all, the Permanent Lok Adalat should conduct conciliation as provided in Section 22C (4) and (5) and thereafter if the PLA is of the opinion from the aforesaid conciliation that, there is an element of settlement, such settlement is to be formulated and to be served to the parties and if the parties fail to reach at an agreement under sub-section (7) of 22C, then only the Permanent Lok Adalat can decide the dispute. Simply because an application is submitted before the Permanent Lok Adalat and a conciliation conducted is failed, the Permanent Lok Adalat can not decide the dispute. Only if the Permanent Lok Adalat is of the opinion that there exists an element of settlement, WP(C) NO. 30355 OF 2015 10 and the parties failed to reach an agreement, the question of dispute resolution on merit by the Permanent Lok Adalat will arise. The statement of objects and reasons of the Legal Services Authorities(Amendment)Act 2002 by which Chapter VIA was inserted in the Act 1987 also will strengthen this view. The statement of object and reason of the 2002 Amendment Act, reads as under: 'The Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 was enacted to constitute legal services authorities for providing free and competent legal services to the weaker sections of the society to ensure that opportunities for securing justice were not denied to any citizen by reason of economic or other disabilities and to organize Lok Adalats to ensure that the operation of the legal system promoted justice on a basis of equal opportunity. The system of Lok Adalat, which is an innovative mechanism for alternate dispute resolution, has proved effective for resolving disputes in a spirit of conciliation outside the Court. 2. However, the major drawback in the existing scheme of organisation of the Lok Adalats under Chapter VI of the said Act is that the system of Lok Adalats is mainly based on compromise or settlement between the parties. If the parties do WP(C) NO. 30355 OF 2015 11 not arrive at any compromise or settlement, the case is either returned to the Court of law or the parties are advised to seek remedy in a Court of law. This causes unnecessary delay in the dispensation of justice. If Lok Adalats are given power to decide the cases on merits in case parties fails to arrive at any compromise or settlement, this problem can be tackled to a great extent. Further, the cases which arise in relation to public utility services such as Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited, Delhi Vidyut Board, etc., need to be settled urgently so that people get justice without delay even at prelitigation stage and thus most of the petty cases which ought not to go in the regular Courts would be settled at the prelitigation stage itself which would result in reducing the workload of the regular Courts to a great extent. It is, therefore, proposed to amend the Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987 to set up Permanent Lok Adalats for providing compulsory pre -litigative mechanism for conciliation and settlement of cases relating to public utility services. 3. The salient features of proposed legislation are as follows: (i) to provide for the establishment of Permanent Lok Adalats which shall consists (sic) of WP(C) NO. 30355 OF 2015 12 a Chairman who is or has been a District Judge or Additional District Judge or has held judicial office higher in rank than that of the District Judge and two other persons having adequate experience in public utility services; (ii) the Permanent Lok Adalat shall exercise jurisdiction in respect of one or more public utility services such as transport services of passengers of goods by air, road and water, postal, telegraph or telephone services, supply of power, light or water to the public by any establishment, public conservancy or sanitation, services in hospitals or dispensaries, and insurance services; (iii) the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Permanent Lok Adalat shall be up to Rupees Ten Lakhs. However, the Central Government may increase the said pecuniary jurisdiction from time to time. It shall have no jurisdiction in respect of any matter relating to an offence not compoundable under any law; (iv) it also provides that before the dispute is brought before any Court, any party to the dispute may make an application to the Permanent Lok Adalat for settlement of the dispute; (v) where it appears to the Permanent Lok Adalat that there exist elements of a settlement, which may be acceptable to the parties, it shall WP(C) NO. 30355 OF 2015 13 formulate the terms of a possible settlement and submit them to the parties for their observations and in case the parties reach an agreement, the Permanent Lok Adalat shall pass an award in terms thereof. In case parties to the dispute fail to reach an agreement, the Permanent Lok Adalat shall decide the dispute on merits; and (vi) every award made by the Permanent Lok Adalat shall be final and binding on all the parties thereto and shall be by a majority of the persons constituting the Permanent Lok Adalat.' (Underline supplied).” ## 5. Moreover, Section 6 of the Post Office Act is also relevant. The same is also extracted ## hereunder: ## “Section 6: **Exemption from liability for loss, misdelivery, delay or damage.** The Government shall not incur any liability by reason of the loss, misdelivery or delay of, or damage to, any postal article in course of transmission by post, except in so far as such liability may in express terms by undertaken by the Central Government as hereinafter provided; and no officer of the Post Office shall incur any WP(C) NO. 30355 OF 2015 14 liability by reason of any such loss, misdelivery, delay or damage, unless he has caused the same fraudulently or by his willful act or default.” 6. The Central Government Counsel relied on the above Section and submitted that the petition is not maintainable. A perusal of the award would not show that the same is considered by the Lok Adalat. In such circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that this is a matter to be reconsidered by the Lok Adalat. The question of maintainability also can be decided by the Lok Adalat. Therefore, this Writ petition is disposed of in the following manner: 1. Ext.P7 is set aside. 2. The Permanent Lok Adalat, Ernakulam is directed to reconsider O.P.No.158/2012 in the light of the principle laid down by this Court in **Assistant Executive Engineer, KSEB, Tvm** WP(C) NO. 30355 OF 2015 15 ## **and Another v. Consumer Vigilance Centre,** **Tvm and others** [2022 (1) KHC 350]. 3. Before proceeding with the case, the Permanent Lok Adalat, Ernakulam will also consider the maintainability of the petition in the light of Section 6 of the Post Office Act, 1898. Sd/- JV/DM **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** WP(C) NO. 30355 OF 2015 16 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 30355/2015** PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DT. 1/8/12 ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR OF PERMANENT LOK ADALAT ALONG WITH THE COMPLAINT EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY RESPONDENT 1 TO 3 DT. 15/10/12 EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE ADDL. WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY RESPODANTS 1 T 3 DT 10/1/13 EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE ADDL. WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY RESPODANTS 1 T 3 DT 20/8/13 EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE ADDL. WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY RESPODANTS 1 T 3 DT 1/1/14 EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE PROOF AFFIDAVIT FILED BY RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 DT.5/6/15 EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD DT. 27/7/15 ISSUED BY THE PERMANENT LOK ADALAT ERNAKULAM RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS : NIL //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE