Allowed

Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd., v. Garvandula Vijaya

Telangana HC7 Apr 2022WP/38830/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the writ petition challenging an award passed by a Permanent Lok Adalat. The Court held that under Section 20 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, an Adalat cannot decide on merits if liability is disputed and no compromise is arrived at. The award was quashed.

What did the court decide?

The award dated 23.08.2011 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat in Case No. 203 of 2008 dated 23-08-2011 is set aside.

Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd., Vs… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR^{THE STATEOF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD} (SPecial Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

THURSDAY ,THE^{SEVENTHDAY OF APRIL} TWO IHOUSAND^{ANDTWENTY TWO}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

HONOURABLE^{THE CHIEFJUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA} AND THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI}

¶6

WRIT PETITION^{NO: 38830 OF 2012}

¶7

Between:

¶8

lclcl Lombard General^{lnsurancecompanyLtd.,, Rep. by its Legal Manager,} Hyderabad.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

' Garvandula^{Vijaya,Wo. Komuraiah, Goud, Agedabout 45 years'Rl/o'} Chamanpalli^{V/o. Karimnagar Mandal and Village'}

¶12

Jerripothula Muninder,^{S/o. Eshwaraiah, Aged aboul2T years, Madiga, FUQ'} ' il:i't5 ;:5i: chr;;"p;iiiV)o. ku'.i'ningi. Mandal. Drivei-cum-owner or Auto bearing No. APIS^T-0318.

¶13

Permanent^{Lok Adalath,, Karimnagar, Rep' by its Secretary/Chairman'}

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under^{Article 226 of the constitutionof lndiapraying that in the} circumstances^{stated in the affidavit filedtherewith, the High court. may be} pleasedtoissueanyappropriatewrit,orderordirectionmoreparticularlyonein in"-.nrtrre of writ^{of Certiorari calling for records relatingto award p-assed in} i.rrun.nt Lok^{Adatath Case No. 2Oit2OOBdated 23-08-2011 on the file of the} Permanent Lok^{Adalath at Karimnagar by quashing the same andby declaringit} as illegal, void^{without jurisdiction}

¶16

l.A. NO:1 oF^{2012(WPM P. NO:49259 0F20121}

¶17

PetitionunderSectionl5lCPCprayingthatinthecircumstancesstatedin the affidavit filed^{in supportof the petition,ifre Hign Court maybe pleased to stay} all further^{proceeding sin pursuance of the Award passedin PermanentLok Adalat} Case No.2OS/ZOOA^{dated23-08-2011on the file of the Permanent Lok Adalat at} Karimnagar^{pending disposal of the aboveWrit Petition}

¶18

l.A. NO:1 OF 2017(WVMP.^{NO: 3199 OF 20 171}

¶19

Between:

¶20

Garvandula Vijaya, W/o. Komuraiah, Goud, Aged about 45 years, Rl/o. Chamanpalli V/o. Karimnagar [Mandal and Village, Karimnagar ltilandal and District.

¶21

...PETITIONER/RESPONDENT NO. 1

¶22

AND

¶23

lclcl Lombard General lnsurance Company Ltd.,, Rep. by its Legal Manager, Hyderabad.

¶24

..RESPONDENT/PETITIONER

¶25

Jerripothula Muninder, S/o. Eshwaraiah, Aged aboul2T years, Madiga, FUQ. H.No. 5-31, Chamanpalli V/o. Karimangar [V1andal, Driver-cum-Owner of Auto bearing No. APIS T-0318.

¶26

Permanent Lok Adalath,, Karimnagar, Rep. by its Secretary/Chairman.

¶27

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT NOS. 2 & 3

¶28

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may be^pleased to vacate the interim order^passed on 18.12.2012 in W.P.M.P. No.4925912012 in W.P. No.3BB30l2O12

¶29

Counsel for the Petitioner:SRl. N MOHAN KRISHNA

¶30

Counsel forthe Respondent No. 1: SRl. RAVI KUMARVADLAKONDA SRI. VENKATESHWAR VARANASI

¶31

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2 & 3:

¶32

The Court made the following:

¶33

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA

¶34

AND

¶35

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

¶36

WRIT PETITION No.38830 of 2Ol2

¶37

ORDER, fp* rr,. Hon'bte the chief hsnce sotish cha^dra shama)

¶38

The present writ petition has been filed by ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited challenging the legality of the award dated 23.O8.201 1 passed by the Permanent Lok Adaiat in Permanent l,ok Adalat Case No.203 of 2008.

¶39

The undisputed facts of the case reveal that a claim petition was preferred by respondent No. 1 before the Permanent Lok Adalat keeping in view the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1 987 (for short "the Act"). The petitioner/ Insurance Company before the Permanent Lok Adalat stated categorically that they are not liable to pay any amount to the claimant. Meaning thereby, tJ:e liability itself was disputed. However, the Permanent Lok Adalat, by award dated 23.08.2011, has decided the matter on merits.

¶40

The petitioner's contention is that in the light of Section 20 of the Act, as there was no compromise or settlement arrived at between the parties and the liabiliry itsell was disputed, no such award could have been passed in the manner and methld \ it has been done by the Permant Lok adalat.

¶41

Section 20 ol the Act is reproduced as under:^-

¶42

"2O,Cognizance^{of cases by Lok Adalats :- (1) Wherein} any case referred to in clause⁽ⁱ⁾ of sub-section⁽⁵⁾ of^section 19, -

¶43

(i) (a) the parties thereof agree; or

¶44

(b) one of the parties thereof makes an application to the Court, for referring the case to the Irk Adalat for settlement and if such Court is prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement; or

¶45

(ii) the Court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat, the Court shall refer the case to the l,ok Adalat:

¶46

Provided that no case shall be referred to the l,ok Adalat under sub-clause (b) of clause (i) or clause (ii) by such Court except after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties.

¶47

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the Authority or Committee organising the Lok Adalat under sub-section (1) of Section 19 may, on receipt of an application from any one of the parties to any matter referred to in clause (ii) of sub-section (5) of section 19 that such matter needs to be determined by a Lok Adalat, refer such matter to the l,ok Adalat, for determination:

¶48

Provided that no matter shall be refemed to the Lok Adalat except after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the other party.

¶49

(3) Where any case is referred to a Lok Adalat under sub-section (1) or where a reference has been made to it under sub-section (2), the Lok Adalat shall proceed to dispose of the case or matter and arive at a compromise or settlement between the parties.

¶50

¶51

(4) Every Lok Adalat shall, while determining any reference before it under this Act, act with utmost expedition to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties and shall be guided by the principles ofjustice, equity, fair play and other legal principles.

¶52

(5) Where no award is made by the Lok Adalat on the ground that no compromise or settlement could be arrived at between the parties, the record of the case shall be returned by it to the court, from which the reference has been received under sub-section (l) for disposal in accordance with law.

¶53

(6) Where no award is made by the Irk Adalat on the ground that no compromise or settlement could be arrived at between the parties, in a matter referred to in sub-section (2), that Lok Adalat shall advice the parties to seek remedy in a Court.

¶54

(7) Where the record of the case if returned under sub-section (5) to the Court, such Court shall proceed to deal with such case from the stage which was reached before such reference under sub-section (1)."

¶55

In the considered opinion of this Court, as there was no compromise between the parties, the matter could not have been decided on merits, as has been done by the permanent Lok Adalat.

¶56

Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the award of the Permanent Lok Adalat deserves to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. The respondent No.1 shall be free to take appropriate action, in accordance with law, in respect of her ciaim.

¶57

With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands allowed.

¶58

¶59

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

¶60

closed. There sl'ra1l be no order as to costs.

¶61

SD/.B.SATYAVATHI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

-,-

SECTION OFFICER

To,

1 The Chairman, Permanent Lok Adalath,,^Karimnagar. 2 One CC to Sri. N Mohan Krishna,^Advocate [OPUC] J One CC to Sri. Ravi Kumar Vadlakonda,^Advocate [OPUC] 4 One CC to Sri. Venkateshwar^{Varanasi, Advocate} [OPUC] 5 Two CD Copies.

PM S}V rl

HIGH COURT

DATED:0710412022

iIATE OF
<br>t;
I qJtl lSlL
tt
o .)
.il

¶72

ORDER

¶73

WP.No.38830 of 2012

¶74

Allowing the WP Without costs.

¶75

tn
,./
(l
L111

Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd., v. Garvandula Vijaya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd., v. Garvandula Vijaya

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

The Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority Vs K. Vittal Reddy

Shapuram Anil Vs Kanchana Srinivas and 3 others

Mohammed Ikram Al Hashmi Vs Talari Rajendra Prasad

Telangana State Tourism Contract Vs Government of Telangana

Nisha Arora, Hyderabad and Another Vs M. Krishna Das, Hyderabad and 3 Others

Sri. M.Raja Sekhar Vs Venkata Swamy Salade