Dismissed

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr. v. M/S Bajjan Wala Cold Store Mamdot and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC24 Mar 2014CWP/23718/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the award of a Permanent Lok Adalat concerning a vehicle insurance claim. Reliance General Insurance Company argued the vehicle was used commercially. The court upheld the Lok Adalat's award after finding the dispute was properly adjudicated under the Legal Services Authorities Act.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition challenging the Permanent Lok Adalat's award was dismissed.

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

[ 1 ]

¶2

C.W.P. No. 23718 of 2011

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH

¶4

C.W.P. No. 23718 of 2011 Date of Decision:March 24, 2014

¶5

Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd. And another ............................................ Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

M/s Bajjan Wala Cold Store Mamdot and another ........................................ Respondents

¶8

Coram: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Ritu Bahri

¶9

1.To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶10

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶11

Present: None for the petitioner/s.

¶12

Mr. Kamal Narula, Advocate for respondent No.1.

¶13

RITU BAHRI, J. (Oral)

¶14

Challenge in this petition is to award dated 12.09.2011 (P-4) passed by learned Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Ferozepur-respondent No.2 vide which the application filed by respondent No.1, has been allowed.

¶15

The vehicle of the petitioner was insured with Reliance General Insurance Company. This vehicle met with an accident on 17.09.2009. The surveyor of the respondents assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.39,370 whereas the petitioner claimed Rs.1,12,263 incurred on the repair of the

¶16

Kaur Rupinder 2014.03.28 10:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶17

C.W.P. No. 23718 of 2011 [ 2 ]

¶18

vehicle which was got repaired from Mohindera Motors Moga, an authorized dealer and service station of Mohindra and Mohindra Ltd.

¶19

Before Permanent Lok Adalat the stand taken by the petitioner Reliance General Insurance Company was that the vehicle was got insured as a private vehicle but it was used for commercial purposes and therefore the applicant has violated the conditions of insurance and is not entitled for any claim. He has received a sum of 39,370/- without protest. Since the respondent (petitioner herein) did not place on record the voucher by which 39,370/- had been accepted by the applicant the assumption was drawn in favour of the applicant that it was a part payment and he was not barred from filing the application under Section 22 (c) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 before the Permanent Lok Adalat. Conciliation proceedings were initiated and ultimately it was found that the dispute between the parties was regarding the body shell assay of the accidental vehicle. The body shell was got replaced by the applicant. As per the report of the surveyor the left side of the body shell assay was completely damaged. As per the estimate prepared by the Modern Motors Ex.AX/1 and AX/2, these exhibits did not show any estimate for repair of the body shell assay. The surveyor had been visiting Modern Motors from time to time when the vehicle in question was

¶20

Kaur Rupinder 2014.03.28 10:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶21

C.W.P. No. 23718 of 2011 [ 3 ]

¶22

under repair and he did not object to the replacement of the body shell assay at that time. Therefore, the Lok Adalat came to a conclusion that the body shell assay of the vehicle in question had been rightly changed and thus the claim of the applicant on this score was accepted.

¶23

The vehicle was of 2007 model and had met with an accident on 17.9.2009. By giving a depreciation of 15% from the estimated price of 57,763/- the price of body shell assay comes to 49,099/-. After deducting 15,000/- which had been paid to the applicant, he was held entitled for payment of 34,099/- on account of replacement of body shell assay.

¶24

After giving necessary opportunity to both the parties to conclude the dispute in conciliation proceedings the Permanent Lok Adalat has rightly invoked the provisions of Section 22(c)(8) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 and after going through the evidence has come to the conclusion that the change of body shell assay of the vehicle was done rightly and giving necessary deductions on depreciation and an amount of 15,000/- being deducted from the estimated price the direction to give 34,099/- does not require any interference.

¶25

The Supreme Court recently in the case of Bar Council of India v. Union of India 2012 (8) SCC 243 has considered the scope and object of Section 22-C of the Legal

¶26

Kaur Rupinder 2014.03.28 10:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶27

C.W.P. No. 23718 of 2011 [ 4 ]

¶28

Services Authorities Act, 1987. In paragraph 22 it is observed as under:-

¶29

“It is necessary to bear in mind that the disputes relating to public utility services have been entrusted to Permanent Lok Adalats only if the process of conciliation and settlement fails. The emphasis is on settlement in respect of disputes concerning public utility services through the medium of Permanent Lok Adalat. It is for this reason that Sub-section (1) of Section 22-C states in no unambiguous terms that 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 dispute. Thus, settlement of dispute between the parties in matters of public utility services is the main theme. However, where despite the endeavours and efforts of the Permanent Lok Adalat the settlement between the parties is not through and the parties are required to have their dispute determined and adjudicated, to avoid delay in adjudication of disputes relating to public utility services, the Parliament has intervened and conferred power of adjudication upon the Permanent Lok Adalat. Can the power conferred

¶30

Kaur Rupinder 2014.03.28 10:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶31

C.W.P. No. 23718 of 2011

¶32

[ 5 ]

¶33

on Permanent Lok Adalats to adjudicate the disputes between the parties concerning public utility service upto a specific pecuniary limit, if they do not relate to any offence, as provided under Section 22-C(8), be said to be unconstitutional and irrational? We think not. It is settled law that an authority empowered to adjudicate the disputes between the parties and act as a tribunal may not necessarily have all the trappings of the court. What is essential is that it must be a creature of statute and should adjudicate the dispute between the parties before it after giving reasonable opportunity to them consistent with the principles of fair play and natural justice. It is not a constitutional right of any person to have the dispute adjudicated by means of a court only. Chapter VI-A has been enacted to provide for an institutional mechanism, through the establishment of Permanent Lok Adalats for settlement of disputes concerning public utility service before the matter is brought to the court and in the event of failure to reach any settlement, empowering the Permanent Lok Adalat to adjudicate such dispute if it does not relate to any offence.”

¶34

Kaur Rupinder 2014.03.28 10:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶35

C.W.P. No. 23718 of 2011

¶36

[ 6 ]

¶37

In view of the ratio of the judgment of Supreme

¶38

Court, the writ petition is dismissed.

¶39

( RITU BAHRI ) JUDGE

¶40

24.3.2014 G.Arora/rupi

¶41

Kaur Rupinder 2014.03.28 10:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr. v. M/S Bajjan Wala Cold Store Mamdot and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr. v. M/S Bajjan Wala Cold Store Mamdot and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Parveen Vs State of Haryana and Others

Gaurav Sharma Vs State of Punjab and Others

M/S Ganpati Rice Mills Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Daryai Lal Vs Union of India and Others

Binder Singh @ Gora Vs State of Punjab

D.P. Angrish and Anr. Vs Sub Divisional Magistrate Khanna and Anr.