CR No.1315 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.1315 of 2010 Date of Decision: 10.08.2010 M/s Sanghera Tanker Transport ..Petitioner Vs. The New India Assurance Company Ltd. and another ..Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vinod K.Sharma Present: Mr.Tribhuwan Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Paul S.Saini, Advocate, for the respondents. --- Vinod K.Sharma,J. (Oral) The petitioner has invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to challenge the award dated 5.10.2009 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Ludhiana, on an application moved under section 22-C of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (for short the Act). The New India Assurance Company and M/s OIL Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals Limited filed an application under section 22-C of the CR No.1315 of 2010 2 Act seeking recovery of Rs.70,037/- being the value of goods of consignment along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of institution of application till realization. The application was contested by the petitioner. In spite of the fact that no consent was given by the petitioner, to pass a consent award learned Permanent Lok Adalat, Ludhiana decided the claim on merit. Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the ground, that it was not open to the learned Lok Adalat to decide the dispute on merit without the consent of the parties. In support of this contention, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab & Anr.Vs. Jalour Singh & Ors. 2008 (1) Civil Courts Cases 591, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to lay down that Lok Adalats have no power to hear the parties to adjudicate the case, as it can only persuade the parties to arrive at just settlement. The operative part of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reads as under:- “8. It is evident from the said provisions that Lok Adalats have no adjudicatory or judicial functions. Their functions relate purely to conciliation. A Lok Adalat determines a reference on the basis of a compromise or settlement between the parties at its instance, and put its seal of confirmation by making an award in terms of the compromise or settlement. When the Lok Adalat is not able to arrive at a settlement or CR No.1315 of 2010 3 compromise, no award is made and the case record is returned to the court from which the reference was received, for disposal in accordance with law. No Lok Adalat has the power to “hear” parties to adjudicate cases as a court does. It discusses the subject matter with the parties and persuades them to arrive at a just settlement. In their conciliatory role, the Lok Adalats are guided by principles of justice, equity, fair plea. When the LSA Act refers to 'determination' by the Lok Adalat and 'award' by the Lok Adalat, the said Act does not contemplate nor require an adjudicatory judicial determination,but a non-adjudicatory determination based on a compromise or settlement, arrived at by the parties, with guidance and assistance from the Lok Adalat. The 'award' of the Lok Adalat does not mean any independent verdict or opinion arrived at by any decision making process. The making of the award is merely an administrative act of incorporating the terms of settlement or compromise agreed by parties in the presence of the Lok Adalat, in the form of an executable order under the signature and seal of the Lok Adalat.” The petitioner also placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Divisional Social Welfare Office, Nagpur Vs. Narayan Dinkar Gokhale 2009 (2) Civil Court Cases 127 and judgment of this court in the case of Sant Ram & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors. 2008 (4) Civil Court Cases 264, again laying down, that CR No.1315 of 2010 4 award passed by the Lok Adalat, which is not based on consent is a nullity. Learned counsel for the respondents referred to Section 22-C of the Act to contend, that it was open to any party to approach the Permanent Lok Adalat, to adjudicate on the dispute between the parties for settlement before the matter was taken to court. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents was, that it was within the jurisdiction of the Lok Adalat to adjudicate the dispute before approaching the court. The application filed by the respondents was maintainable, as Section 22-C (8) of the Act, gives power to Permanent Lok Adalat to decide the dispute. This contention of the learned counsel cannot be accepted, as before exercising powers under section 22-C (8) of the Act, it was required for the Permanent Lok Adalat to have acted in terms of Section 22-C (7) of the Act, and it was only then that adjudication could be done, to persuade the parties for amicable settlement but learned Lok Adalat could not adjudicate and pass order without the consent of the parties, in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to above. Consequently, this revision is allowed. Impugned order of learned Lok Adalat is set aside. The parties shall be at liberty to approach the competent court of jurisdiction for redressal of their grievances in accordance with law. No costs. (Vinod K.Sharma) 10.08.2010 Judge rp