IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (C) No. 6764 of 2007
1. Ram Pyari Devi
2. Ajit Mondal
3. Amarjit Mondal
4. Sarswati Kumari
5. Inderjit Mondal
6. Puja Kumari ... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. M/s Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
2. Sri Anil Kumar Roy ... ... ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.G.R. PATNAIK
For the Petitioners : Mr. N.K. Sahani, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. D.C. Ghosh, Advocate
09/20.11.2009
: Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioners, in this writ application, have challenged
the Award dated 20.01.2007 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat,
Dhanbad in P.L.A. Case No. 1233 of 2005, whereby the Lok Adalat
has held that the case is not maintainable before the Lok Adalat,
with a further observation that the petitioners may file fresh case for
compensation under appropriate law before appropriate forum, if so
advised.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would want to
explain by reference to the facts of the case that, the accident in
which the deceased had sustained fatal injury, involved two vehicles.
One vehicle was a Trekker in which the deceased was travelling and
the other, a Truck which had hit the Trekker and had fled away. The
Permanent Lok Adalat, on perusal of the corresponding F.I.R., had
observed that the identity and the Registration No. of the vehicle
which had hit the Trekker could not be ascertained and upon such
observations, had noted that the facts of the case suggested that it
was a hit and run accident case under the provisions of Section 161
of the Motor Vehicles Act and as such, the matter was not
maintainable for settlement of the dispute by the Permanent Lok
Adalat.
4. Assailing the findings, learned counsel wants to explain
that the Permanent Lok Adalat has erred in failing to take note of
the fact that the identity of the Trekker, which was also involved in
the accident and the identity of the owner of the Trekker and also of
the Insurer of the Trekker, was known and in fact, they have been
made parties to the proceedings. Learned counsel argues that in this
view of the matter, the Permanent Lok Adalat could not refuse to
entertain the case for settlement.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company
submits that the Insurance Company had objected to the dispute
being referred to the Permanent Lok Adalat and yet, the Permanent
Lok Adalat has proceeded to consider the case for settlement.
However, since by the impugned order, the Insurance Company is
not adversely affected, the Insurance Company has not preferred
any redressal against the impugned order.
6. From the facts and circumstances, as it appears, out of
the two disputing parties, the Insurance Company had objected to
the dispute being resolved by the Permanent Lok Adalat. Under
such circumstances, the Permanent Lok Adalat could not possibly
have proceeded to consider the case for settlement. However, it
appears that the Permanent Lok Adalat has refrained itself from
deciding the dispute arising in the compensation case, on the
ground that the matter is not maintainable before it.
7. As it appears from the pleadings of the petitioners, the
claim for compensation, as raised by the petitioners, is directed
against the owner and Insurer of the Trekker which was involved in
the accident and even if considered that it is not a hit and run case
yet, it would be incumbent upon the claimants to prove the
negligence on the part of purported offending vehicle. The
appropriate proceedings, as rightly pointed out by the Lok Adalat,
should have been under the provisions of Section 166 of the Motor
Vehicles Act and before the appropriate forum.
8. The Permanent Lok Adalat has rightly advised the
petitioners to approach the appropriate forum for claiming
compensation under appropriate provisions of the Motor Vehicles
Act.
9. I do not find any infirmity and illegality and there being
no sufficient grounds in this writ application, this writ application is
dismissed.
(D.G.R. Patnaik, J.)
Manish