M/s Oriental Insruance Company Ltd vs Lalita Surin

Heard Mrs. Nisha Thakur, counsel appearing for the petitioner.Â

Heard Mr. Arun Kumar, counsel appearing for the respondent no. 1.

Nobody appears on behalf of the other respondents.Â

This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:

a) “For quashing the Judgement/Award dated 11-06-2008 (Annexure-5) passed by Hon’ble Shri Jaleshwar Ram, the Chairman, and its

Members Shri Deo Sagar Singh, and Shri Givind Ram Diwan of Permanent Lok Adalot, Gumla, in PLA case no. 64 of 2007, (arising from a M.V.A.

Claim Case no. 19/2006 before the Fast Track Court-1, Gumla-)- preferred under section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988, who awarded a

compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- under Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987,--- final compensation damage to be paid to the Petitioner within a month,

due to death of her husband, the deceased Oskar Surin, on 18.02.2006 while he was travelling on the roof of the bus “Neelrath†bearing

Registration no. JH 01C- 7609, who fell down on the running road, failing which shall have to pay interest, at the rate of 12 % per annum from the day

of filing; And

b) For quashing the above order passed in PLA Case no. 64 of 2007, as the Permanent Lok Adalat has the power of ‘Conciliation’ but has

‘No adjudicatory power’ or to perform ‘Judicial functions’, being contrary to law and beyond power and jurisdiction of the Lok Adalat----

as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab vs. Jalour Singh, a judgment by three judge pronounced on 18 January, 2008; And

c) For quashing the above order as the Permanent Lok Adalat has ‘No Jurisdiction’ under chapter- VIA, Section 22C(1) ‘First Proviso’

of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, (Amendment) 2002 to adjudicate a matter relating to an offence ‘Not Compoundable’ under any

law, arising out of FIR no. 09/2006 dated 25-02-2006, and also when the ‘Conciliation and Settlement’ not signed by the parties and had failed

before the Permanent Lok Adalat.â€​

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the proceeding before the Permanent Lok Adalat which ultimately led to the filing of the impugned order,

was itself not maintainable and she submits that the instant case can be decided on the short point as to whether after the claimant having filed a case

before the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Gumla any petition before the Permanent Lok Adalat could not have been filed by the claimant in

view of section 22 C (1) of Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987.Â

Counsel for the petitioner by referring to paragraph nos. 9 and 10 of the writ petition submits that the petitioner before the Permanent Lok Adalat

was the wife of the deceased who under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 filed Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Case No. 19 of 2006 before

the Tribunal, Gumla for a claim of Rs. 7,40,000/- and thereafter, a fresh application was filed before the Permanent Lok Adalat which was numbered

as Pre-Litigation Case No. 64 of 2007 and accordingly, she submits that in view of the Section 22(C)(1) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987

the petition before the Permanent Lok Adalat was not maintainable. She submits that as per the provision of Section 22(C)(1) of Legal Services

Authorities Act, 1987, any party to the dispute may, before the dispute is brought before any Court, make an application to the Permanent Lok

Adalat for settlement of dispute. She submits that the dispute was already subject matter before the Claims Tribunal and accordingly, any application

could not have been filed by the claimant before the Permanent Lok Adalat. She submits that the Permanent Lok Adalat could not have entertained

the application and decided the case as it had no jurisdiction to entertain the application under the facts and circumstances of this case.Â

Counsel for the respondent no. 1, on the other hand submits that although no counter-affidavit has been filed in this case denying the statements

made in paragraph nos. 9 and 10 of the writ petition, but from the perusal of the Annexure-2 it appears that an application under Section 140 of Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988 was filed which was numbered as M.J.C. Case No. 19 of 2006 before the District and Sesssions Judge-cum-Motor Vehicle

Accident Claims Tribunal, Gumla and he submits that the same relates to payment of interim compensation only and therefore, the case filed before

the Permanent Lok Adalat under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was maintainable. He submits that the dispute under Section 140 of the

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the dispute under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 are two distinct disputes and merely because the

application for interim compensation under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was filed before the Claims Tribunal, that does not bar the

jurisdiction of Permanent Lok Adalat from entertaining an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Counsel for the respondent no. 1 further submits that the Sub-section 1 of Section 22(C) of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 cannot be a bar

for exercising jurisdiction under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 merely because a proceeding under Section 140 of Motor Vehicles

Act, 1988 was initiated before the Claims Tribunal.Â

However, during the course of arguments counsel for the respondents could not dispute that the order of interim compensation which is passed

under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act is subsequently subject to adjustment against the final award which is passed under Section 166 of the

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

He has relied upon the judgment passed by this Hon’ble Court reported in 2015 (3) JLJR 11 to submit that an application under Section 166 of

the Motor Vehicles Act was maintainable before the Permanent Lok Adalat under Section 22(C) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 inspite

of the fact that interim compensation under Section 140 was passed by the Claims Tribunal.Â

After hearing the counsel for the parties and after considering the materials on record, this Court finds that a specific statement has been made in

para 9 of the writ petition that the petitioner had filed an application under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which was numbered as Motor

Vehicle Application Claim Case No.19 of 2006 before the Tribunal, Gumla. However, from the perusal of the Annexure-2 to the writ petition it

appears that an application under Section 140 of Motor Vehicles Act was certainly filed before the Tribunal and there is no dispute that any interim

compensation which is awarded under Section 140 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is subject to adjustment at the stage of adjudication of final claim

which may be done under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Section 22 (C ) (1) of Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 reads as under :-Â

 “ 22(C ) 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 settlement of disputeâ€​Â

From the bare perusal of the Section 22(C) of Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 it appears that condition precedent for filing an application

before the Permanent Lok Adalat is that the petition is maintainable only before the dispute is brought before any Court.Â

This Court is of the considered view that after having filed the application under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the claims

Tribunal, certainly the dispute has been brought before the competent Tribunal where at least the Tribunal has to see prima facie as to whether the

accident has taken place out of a motor vehicle ; as to whether there was any death or disability arising out of accident and whether the claim was

made against the owner and the insurer of the motor vehicle involved in the accident.Â

This Court further finds that the compensation to be awarded to the claimant under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is also subject to

adjustment of compensation which is paid under Section 140 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. This is on account of the fact that as per section proviso

to 140(5)Â of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 the amount of compensation to be given under any law shall be reduced from the amount of compensation

payable under section 140 or under section               163-A. Â

Further from the perusal of the Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 it appears that the said provision is also linked to compensation under

Section 140 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Thus the contention of the respondent that the proceeding under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is

totally delinked from the institution of the proceeding under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 does not appear to be correct and

accordingly, this contention is rejected.Â

This Court is of the considered view that the dispute in connection with the claim of compensation having already been brought by the claimant

before the Tribunal under Section 140 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the subsequent case under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was not

maintainable before the Permanent Lok Adalat.

So far as the judgment which has been relied upon by the respondent no. 1 reported in 2015 (3) JLJR 11 is concerned , it appears from the facts of

that case that the application for compensation under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act was filed before the Permanent Lok Adalat and before the

Permanent Lok Adalat itself another application for interim compensation under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988 was filed, wherein the

Permanent Lok Adalat has awarded the interim compensation which was the subject matter of challenge before this Hon’ble Court. In the instant

case, the situation is different. In the instant case the application for grant of compensation under section 140 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which is in

the nature of compensation based on “no fault liability†was filed before the Claims Tribunal and the application for compensation under section

166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was filed before the permanent Lok               Adalat. Therefore, the judgment relied

upon by the respondent does not help the respondent in any manner.Â

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the application for grant of compensation under Section

166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988Â in the facts and circumstances of this case was not maintainable before the Permanent Lok Adalat in view of the

fact that the application for grant of compensation under section 140 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was filed before the Tribunal. This is due to the

specific bar under section 22 (C ) of Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 which provides that the petition before Permanent Lok Adalat is

maintainable only before the dispute is brought before any court.

Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat is hereby set-aside. However, it will be open to the respondents to make

appropriate application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the competent Claims Tribunal constituted under section 165 of

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.Â