C.W.P. No.9407 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.9407 of 2010 Date of Decision.10.08.2011 Smt. Krishanawanti widow of Sh. Balwant Rai, resident of House No.230, Lajpat Nagar, Hissar. .....Petitioner Versus Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services) through its Chairman District Courts, Hissar and others .....Respondents Present: Mr. Anurag Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Raj Kumar Bashamboo, Advocate for respondent No.1. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The writ petition has been filed at the instance of a claimant, whose claim petition was thrown out at the threshold by the Permanent Lok Adalat on the issue of jurisdiction. 2. The insurance company contended that an insurance service cannot be a subject of adjudication before the Permanent Lok Adalat by invoking the jurisdiction under Chapter 6A of the Legal Services Authority Act. According to the insurance company, the petitioner had already sought remedy before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum and it was withdrawn on 01.06.2007. According to him, a pre-litigation conciliation and settlement that Chapter 6A contemplates, cannot be undertaken in a case of genuine dispute between the parties that results C.W.P. No.9407 of 2010 -2- in declining to owner a policy for certain violation. Learned counsel refers me a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Manubhai Dharmasinhbhai Gajera and others II(2008) CPJ 43(SC). The Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with the case of renewal of medical insurance policy on payment of premium as not being automatic and in the course of its judgment, it is stated that a contract insurance policy does not come within the purview of public utility service in terms of Section 22-C of the Legal Services Authority Act as amended in 2002. 3. I do not find any of these contentions of the insurance company as appropriate or just. When a complaint was lodged before the District Forum, the contention by the insurance company was that the case involves determination of complicated questions of fact and having regard to the particular defence, which was taken, the petitioner has withdrawn the petition stating that she will have a liberty to file a civil suit or petition before the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services). There cannot be a doubt that the "public utility service" includes an insurance service also. Section 22 (A) (b) that defines "public utility service" includes in Clause (vi) “insurance policy”. The establishment of Permanent Lok Adalat is for taking cognizance of cases, which involve public utility service. The contention of the insurance company that a claim cannot be pursued before the Permanent Lok Adalat is clearly misconceived. 4. It was not appropriate for the insurance company to even plead lack of jurisdiction unless it was able to fend off the claim as vexatious or there is inherently possible for the insurance company to C.W.P. No.9407 of 2010 -3- contend that the claim was not bona fide at all. The dismissal of the petition that it had no jurisdiction is erroneous. 5. The writ petition is allowed. The matter is remitted to the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services) for consideration in accordance with law. The issue of jurisdiction shall no longer be available for consideration before the Permanent Lok Adalat. 6. Learned counsel for the insurance company states that evidence had not been let in by the insurance company and the Permanent Lok Adalat had closed the evidence. If there is any scope for reopening the case, it shall be open to the insurance company to make such a plea before the Permanent Lok Adalat and the same will be decided on its merits by the Permanent Lok Adalat after taking the objection, if any by the claimant petitioner. 7. The parties shall appear before the Permanent Lok Adalat on 08.09.2011. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE August 10, 2011 Pankaj*