JUDGMENT
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, A.C.J.
Page 1345
1. In this appeal, the only question required to be determined is : Whether the Permanent Lok Adalat has jurisdiction to decide insurance claim of an insurer ?
2. The appellant, an authorized distributor of Sony Product having its registered Office at Kilburn Colony-Hinoo, Town and District – Ranchi obtained a Burglary and Page 1346 House Breaking Policy from the Respondent – United India Insurance Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Insurance Company), effective for the period from 29th August, 2001 to 31 st August, 2002.
On 18 th/19th August, 2002, at midnight, a burglary took place in the Godown of appellant. He lodged F.I.R. on 19th August, 2002 with Doranda Police Station, Ranchi Under Section 461/379 I.P.C. The appellant submitted a claim with the Insurance Company for a loss of Rs. 11, 14,577/-, but it was not entertained.
The Police submitted final form, but it was opposed by the Insurance Company; the matter is pending before the Court below, A complaint Case No. 255 of 2004 was filed by the appellant before the District Consumer Forum, but it was not entertained, the consumer forum having no such jurisdiction to decide such insurance claim. The appellant, thereafter preferred a claim case, before the Permanent Lok Adalat, Ranchi reducing the claim amount to Rs. 9,80,000/-. It was registered as PLA Case No. 30/2006. On being noticed, the Insurance Company appeared, contested the case and raised the question of jurisdiction of Permanent Lok Adalat. It was argued that the insurance claim was not maintainable before Permanent Lok Adalat.
The Permanent Lok Adalat, Ranchi entertained the claim for a Pre-litigation Conciliation and Settlement Under Section 22-C of The Legal Services act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 1987) and by order dated 4 th January, 2004, answered the preliminary issue, in affirmative but against the Insurance Company, It held that the application for insurance claim was maintainable before the Permanent Lok Adalat. The said order having been challenged by the Insurance Company before this Court the learned Single Judge by impugned order dated 15th July, 2005 held that the Permanent Lok Adalat has no jurisdiction to decide the insurance claim and set aside the order passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat. Hence this appeal.
3. Chapter VI of Act, 1987 deals with ‘Lok Adalat’. On the other hand, chapter VI A inserted by Legal Services Authority (Amendment) Act, 2002 deals with ‘Permanent Lok Adalat’. Section 19 relates to ‘Organisation of Lok Adalats’ and Section 20 deals with ‘cognizance of cases by Lok Adalats’.
In the case of State of Punjab and Ors. v. Phulan Rani and Anr. reported in (2002) 7 SCC 555, having noticed specific language used in Sub-section (3) of Section 20, the Supreme Court held that the ‘Lok Adalat’ can dispose of a matter only by way of compromise or settlement between the parties; if no compromise or settlement could be arrived at, no order can be passed by ‘Lok Adalat’.
Chapter VI A of Act, 1987 which deals with “Pre-litigation Conciliation and settlement”, provides for establishment of ‘Permanent Lok Adalats’ at such places and for exercising such jurisdiction in respect of one or more Public Utility Services and for such areas as may be specified by the State authorities by means of a notification. Provision of ‘Permanent Lok Adalats’ has been made notwithstanding anything contained in Section 19 of the Act, 1987, which deals with Lok Adalats.
‘Permanent Lok Adalats’ can determine matter relating to ‘Public Utility Service’ as defined Under Section 22A, which includes insurance service, relevant provision of which is quoted hereunder:
22A. Definitions.- In this Chapter and for the purposes of Sections 22 and 23, unless the context otherwise requires:
Page 1347
(a) Permanent Lok Adalat” means a Permanent Lok Adalat established under Sub-section (1) of Section 22B;
(b) “Public utility service” means any –
(i) transport service for the carriage of passengers or goods by air, road or water; or
(ii) postal, telegraph or telephone service; or
(iii) supply of power, light or water to the public by any establishment;
Or
(iv) system of public conservancy or sanitation; or
(v) service in hospital or dispensary; or
(vi) insurance service,
and includes any service which the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be, may, in the public interest, by notification, declare to be a public utility service for the purposes of this Chapter.
4. For the purpose of determination of claim, it is not necessary for the Permanent Lok Adalats to dispose of the matter only by way of compromise or settlement arrived at between the parties. Even if parties fail to compromise or fail to arrive at a settlement, Permanent Lok Adalat can decide the claim, on merit, in respect to any Public Utility Service, as defined Under Section 22A. (See Sub-section (8) of Section 22C of Act, 1987)
Section 22C while deals with “cognizance of cases by Permanent Lok Adalats”, it excludes its jurisdiction in respect of any matter relating to an offence not compoundable under any law or where the value of property in dispute exceeds rupees ten lacs.
For proper appreciation of the case, it is relevant to notice Section 22C of the Act, 1987, as quoted hereunder:
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 Adalaf, 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 Page 1348 application, points or issues in such dispute and grounds relied in support of, or in opposition to, such points or issue, 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.
(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 parlies 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.
5. From the aforesaid provisions of law, the following fact emerges:
(i) Permanent Lok Adalats have jurisdiction to decide the matter relating to Public Utility Services, including insurance service;
(ii) Even where the parties fail to reach to an agreement, the Permanent Lok Adalats can decide the dispute relating to Public Utility Service;
(iii) In respect of any matter relating to an offence not compoundable under any law or if the limit increases to rupees ten lacs, the Permanent Lok Adalats have no jurisdiction to decide the claim.
6. Admittedly, Doranda P.S. case No. 216 of 2002 Under Section 461/379 I.P.C., is pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi. In the said case, final form was submitted, but on receipt of objection filed by the Insurance company, the Chief Page 1349 Judicial Magistrate, vide order dated 6 th October, 2004 held that further investigation is required and, accordingly, directed for further investigation. It is alleged that the said order was passed without notice to the appellant.
In the criminal proceeding, it is to be determined whether the accused, if any, is guilty for the offence Under Section 461/379 I.P.C. The said offence may be non-compoundable, if any person on investigation is found to have committed such offence and is made an accused in the criminal case.
So far as the case before the Permanent Lok Adalat is concerned, the Adalat is to determine whether burglary had taken place or not, after taking into consideration the independent evidence of the parties. It is not required to determine as to who has committed burglary nor it is required to determine whether an accused is guilty for the charges or not. Therefore, for the purpose of determination of the issue and claim in question, the Permanent Lok Adalat is not required to determine whether offence committed by any accused is ‘compoundable’ or not. Thus, as in this case such issue is not required to be determined by the Permanent Lok Adalat, we hold that the Permanent Lok Adalat has jurisdiction to decide the claim as made by the appellant, on merit, after hearing the parties and on appreciation of evidence on record. Learned Single Judge has failed to notice the aforesaid facts while determining the issue in question.
7. We, accordingly, set aside the order dated 15th July, 2005 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) No. 523 of 2005 and upheld the order dated 4th January, 2005 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Ranchi in P.L.A. Case No. 30 of 2004. The writ petition preferred by the Insurance company is dismissed. The appeal is allowed with direction to Permanent Lok Adalat, Ranchi to decide the P.L.A. case No. 30 of 2004, on merit, after hearing the parties and taking into consideration the evidence, as may be brought on record.
8. However, in the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order, as to costs.