Civil Revision No.5830 of 2007 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.5830 of 2007 Date of decision: 13.2.2009 Reliance General Insurance Company Limited ...Petitioner Versus Rajiv Gupta and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr. Manmohan Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Deepak Balyan, Advocate for the respondent No.1, S.D.ANAND, J. The controversy between the parties was disposed of by the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Gurgaon, vide order dated 5.6.2007. The award given consists of two facets. The Permanent Lok Adalat awarded a sum of Rs.57440/- (with interest at the rate of 12% with effect from the date of accident till the date of payment). Qua the demurrage charges, the Permanent Lok Adalat observed that the amount claimed by the workshop on account of demurrage shall be borne by the respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues, at the very out set , that the impugned award is unsustainable on the face of it as the Permanent Lok Adalat had no jurisdiction to grant it. The plea is denuded of merit. Sub Clause 8 of Section 22 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 provides that “where the parties fail to reach at an agreement under sub-section (7), the Permanent Lok Civil Revision No.5830 of 2007 -2- **** Adalat shall, if the dispute does not relate to any offence, decide the dispute.” The point under reference came up for adjudication before a Division Bench of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 17061 of 2007 ( New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Tara Chand Yadav & another). The constitutionality of the provisions aforementioned was upheld by this Court while relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 543 of 2002 S.N.Pande Vs. Union of India & Anr decided on 28.10.2002. It was noticed that the Apex Court had already upheld the constitutional validity of provision aforementioned. Learned counsel for the petitioner, then, has a grievance that the Permanent Lok Adalat committed an error of law by not proceeding to quantify the amount payable as demurrage charges. Learned counsel for the respondent is not in a position to resist that plea. The petition is disposed of with a direction to the Permanent Lok Adalat to quantify the demurrage charges payable by the respondent. The liability of the respondent to pay the demurrage charges has already been upheld by the Permanent Lok Adalat and the direction being given by this Court to the Permanent Lok Adalat is only qua the quantification thereof. The parties through their learned counsel, are directed to appear before the Permanent Lok Adalat on 13.3.2009. Disposed of accordingly. February 13, 2009 (S.D.Anand) Pka Judge