Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P. THURSDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 15TH CHAITHRA, 1946 PETITIONER: ANEESH S/O.MURALEEDHARAN, KATTUVILA VEEDU, KARIKKAKOM, ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV SRI.T.K.ANANDA KRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: 1 CHAIRMAN, PERMANENT LOK ADALATH, FOR PUBLIC UTILITY SERVICES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 2 THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD, REMA PLAZA, SS KOVIL ROAD, THAMPANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 3 KRISHNANKUTTY, T C 25/1389,KUNNUMKUZHI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 014. BY ADVS. SMT.A.SREEKALA SRI.VENUGOPAL V, GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has approached this Court being aggrieved by the fact that the amount of compensation agreed to be paid to the petitioner by the 2nd respondent Insurance Company on account of injuries suffered by the petitioner in a motor accident was not being paid along with suitable interest. It is the case of the petitioner that the Lok Adalat ought to have granted interest on the amount agreed to be paid. Ext.P2 is the order of the Permanent Lok Adalat for Public Utility Services, which reads as follows:- “This petition is one filed u/s 22C r/w 22 A (b)
(i) & (vi) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987
against New India Assurance Company Ltd., claiming compensation for the injury sustained in a motor vehicle accident by the petitioner at 2.45 PM on 09-01-2010 near Sreekariyam junction. 2) The OP was filed on 10.03.2010 and when the OP was taken up for consideration on 12.06.2013 the Permanent Lok Adalat on the same day passed the following; Counsel for petitioner present. No representation from the side of respondents. Counsel for petitioner submits that the insurance company has put its foot down in their attitude regarding
interest. As we could recollect, the case came up for settlement finally on 28-05-2013 on which day the offer from the side of the company was Rs.2,10,000/- to which the petitioner was agreeable but only on condition of paying interest by 50% of the usual rate (9%) as well, which the company declined although the learned counsel conceded that
in cases settled before the MACT and at Adalat held
by District Legal Services Authority they have conceded interest at such rate in those cases pending for over a year. If that be the position we are at a loss to understand the rationale behind the discriminatory attitude of the insurer in those cases filed before this forum. Since this forum has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the claim on merits, the only course open is to dismiss the OP although we are of the view that the attitude of the company is against all known principles of natural justice and equity. Hence dismissed with liberty to file fresh OP before MAСТ.”
2 The learned Government Pleader submits that it is now settled by the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Bhoopesh and Others v. M/s.New India Assurance Company Ltd. and Others [2009 (3) KHC 830(DB)] that claim for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act cannot be maintained before the Permanent Lok Adalat under the provisions of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. Taking into consideration the law laid down by the Division Bench and also taking into account the fact that Ext.P2
order reserves the right to the petitioner to approach the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal, this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- GOPINATH P. JUDGE DK APPENDIX OF WP(C) 19371/2013 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1- TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 10.03.2010 FILED BY THE PETITIONER FOR COMPENSATION U/S.22 OF THE LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITIES ACT BEFORE THE HON’BLE PERMANENT LOK ADALATH AT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. EXHIBIT P2- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED BY THE LOK ADALATH DATE 12.06.2013