Quashed

Priyanka Senapati v. Chairman,Permanent Lok Adalat(Pus),Dhenkanal

Orissa HC15 Jul 2022WP(C)/6284/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a Permanent Lok Adalat award directing payment of life insurance benefits. The court held that where the insurer does not resist liability, the matter is not a utility dispute adjudicable by the Lok Adalat. The award was quashed and the insurer directed to act per law.

What did the court decide?

Impugned award dated 15th February, 2022 set aside and quashed; insurance company directed to act in accordance with law.

Priyanka Senapati Vs Chairman,Permanent Lok Adalat(Pus),Dhenkanal — Insurance | Orissa HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.6284 of 2022 (Through hybrid mode)

¶3

Priyanka Senapati and another

¶4

…. Petitioners

¶5

Mr. N.K. Sethi, Advocate

¶6

-versus-

¶7

Chairman, Permanent Lok Adalat (PUC), Dhenkanal and others

¶8

…. Opposite Parties

¶9

None

¶10

CORAM: JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA

Order No.

ORDER 15.07.2022

1. Mr. Sethi, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioners and produces order dated 18^th May, 2022 dismissing as withdrawn on settlement, C.S. no.14 of 2022 (Susama Pandit v. B.M., LIC, Dhenkanal and others) dealt with by Court of Senior Civil Judge, Dhenkanal. None appears on behalf of opposite parties though order sheet reveals opposite party no.5 was represented on 4^th September, 2022.

¶15

2. The writ petition was moved on 4^th April, 2022. Mr. Sethi had submitted impugned is award dated 15^th February, 2022, by which the Permanent Lok Adalat (PLA) directed his client to furnish bank

¶16

Page 1 of 1

¶17

// 2 //

¶18

guarantee of Rs.3.5 lakhs to enable her to receive death benefit under life insurance policy, in respect of her deceased husband. Further direction was for paying out proportionate share of the benefit to her mother-in-law. He submitted, insurance law is clear on the nominee being beneficiary, in respect of insurance pay out. In any event, his client does not have the means to furnish bank guarantee of Rs.3.5 lakhs.

¶19

3. Sub clause (6) in clause (b) under section 22 A, Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 provides for insurance service to be an utility, over which the Lok Adalat has jurisdiction. It does not appear that there is element of insurance service involved in impugned award. It appears to be adjudication of the contesting claims on the insurance pay out. Whether the Lok Adalat can adjudicate on entitlement to the benefit, on contesting claims, there being no resistance by the insurer in fulfilling the liability on happening of the contingency, is the question to be answered.

¶20

4. Text of order dated 4^th July, 2022 is reproduced below.

¶21

“1. Mr. Sethi, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioners and submits, under challenge is judgment dated 15^th February, 2022 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat (PLA). Mr. Mishra, learned advocate appears on behalf of opposite party no.5 and submits, he has instructions that there has been settlement between the

¶22

Page 2 of 3

¶23

// 3 //

¶24

parties. Mr. Sethi confirms there has been settlement but, prays for directions to set aside the award, for the settlement to be worked out.

¶25

2. Parties are free to produce the settlement and thereupon heard for purpose of disposal of the writ petition.

¶26

3. List on 11^th July, 2022.”

¶27

5. Court has already recorded above that there does not appear to

¶28

be resistance by the insurer in fulfilling the liability on happening of the contingency. The suit stands dismissed on settlement out of Court.

¶29

Therefore, there is no dispute regarding claiming benefit under the policy. Impugned award dated 15^th February, 2022 is set aside and quashed. On claim made by petitioner, the insurance company is expected to act in accordance with law.

¶30

6. The writ petition is disposed of.

¶31

(Arindam Sinha) Judge

¶32

Sks

¶33

Page 3 of 3

Priyanka Senapati v. Chairman,Permanent Lok Adalat(Pus),Dhenkanal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Priyanka Senapati v. Chairman,Permanent Lok Adalat(Pus),Dhenkanal

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

Similar cases

Anuradha Pati Vs Govt.of Ind.and Ors.

Ajaya Kumar Sahoo Vs State Bank of India

Rajalaxmi Pradhan Vs Bank of India, Bbsr

M/S Sri Aurobindo Integral Education Centre, Nayagarh Vs M/S Varthana Finance Pvt. Ltd.,Bangalore

Mamata Swain Vs Union Bank of India

Padmalochan Nayak Vs NHAI