Allowed

Rakesh v. the Permanent Lok Adalat , Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC18 Sept 2024/4392/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition under Article 227, the Court set aside an order by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Lucknow, which rejected a vehicle accident claim petition due to lack of territorial jurisdiction. The Court held that the Adalat has jurisdiction as the defendant banks there. It also noted that the Insurance Ombudsman remedy is not statutory and does not bar the Lok Adalat proceeding. The matter wa

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 01.05.2024 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Permanent Lok Adalat, Lucknow for passing fresh orders regarding admission of the claim.

Rakesh Vs the Permanent Lok Adalat , Lko… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD SITTING AT LUCKNOW

¶2

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:64405

¶3

A.F.R.

¶4

Court No. - 19

¶5

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 4392 of 2024

¶6

Petitioner :- Rakesh

¶7

Respondent :- The Permanent Lok Adalat , Lko. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajeet Kumar,Anjali Verma,Arvind Kumar,Devendra Kumar Verma,Rinku Verma,Sarvesh Kumar

¶8

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶9

Sri Rinku Verma, the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

¶10

By means of the instant petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged validity of an order dated 01.05.2024 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Lucknow in Miscellaneous Case No.02 of 2024, whereby the claim petition filed by the petitioner was rejected at the admission stage for the reason that the accident, giving rise to the cause of action for filing the claim, took place within the limits of District Ayodhya. The Insurance policy of the vehicle was issued by Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Ltd. through its web portal and the pollution 'under control' certificate was issued from District Unnao. The rejection under letter dated 28.11.2023 issued by the Insurance Company rejecting the petitioner's claim mentions that the petitioner may take action at one of the four levels mentioned in the letter and he has an option to file a complaint before the Insurance Ombudsman, but the petitioner has not exercised those options. From the aforesaid facts, the Permanent Lok Adalat came to a

¶11

conclusion that it has no jurisdiction to entertain the claim.

¶12

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the opposite party M/s Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Ltd has its office at Lucknow. Although Section 22D of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 provides that 'the Permanent Lok Adalat shall be guided by the principles of natural justice, objectivity, fair play, equality and other principles of justice, and shall not be bound by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 22 of the aforesaid Act provides that 'the Permanent Lok Adalats have the same powers as are the vested in a Civil Court under the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 while trying a suit in respect of certain matters enumerated in that section.

¶13

There is no provision contained in the Legal Services Authorities Act governing the territorial jurisdiction of Permanent Lok Adalat and in these circumstances, the general principles regarding territorial jurisdiction contained in the Civil Procedure Code shall apply to proceeding before Permanent Lok Adalat also. Section 20 of the Civil Procedure Code provides that 'a suit may be instituted within the court, within the local limits of whose jurisdiction and defendants reside or carry on business or personally works for gain. When the defendant in the claim-Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Ltd has its office at Lucknow and it carries on business within the limits of Lucknow, the Permanent Lok Adalat at Lucknow has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the claim filed by the petitioner.

¶14

In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the order dated 01.05.2024 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Lucknow dismissing the petitioner's claim at the admission stage on the ground of lack of territorial

¶15

jurisdiction, is not sustainable in law and the same is liable to be set aside.

¶16

So far as the observations of Permanent Lok Adalat regarding alternative remedy is concerned, the Beema Lok Pal has been constituted by a notification issued by the Central Government and it has not been constituted under any statute. The remedy before Insurance Lok Pal is not a statutory remedy and it does not bar the petitioner's right to file a claim before the Permanent Lok Adalat.

¶17

Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The order dated 01.05.2024 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Permanent Lok Adalat Lucknow for passing fresh orders regarding admission of the claim in accordance with law, keeping in view the observations made in this order.

¶18

[Subhash Vidyarthi, J.]

¶19

Order Date :- 18.9.2024 KR

¶20

Digitally signed by :- RABINDRA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rakesh v. the Permanent Lok Adalat , Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakesh v. the Permanent Lok Adalat , Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ashish Kumar Gupta Vs Arti Gupta

Kaushalendra Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief/ Prin. Secy., Deptt. of Empowerment, Persons With Disabil. and Ors.

Vikas Chandra Kushwaha vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin.Secy. Empowerment of Persons With Disabilities and 6 Ors.

Smt. Sitapati Vs Tehsildar, Judicial, Tehsil Tarabganj, Gonda and Another

Dinesh Kumar Maurya and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Kailash Nath Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lucknow and Others