1 2025:CGHC:26568-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 382 of 2025 1. Branch Manager Mahindra And Mahindra Finance Service Limited, Behind Krishna Petrol Pump, Geedam Road, District Jagdalpur Chhattisgarh 2. Manager Mahindra And Mahindra Finance Service Limited Corporation Office, 2nd Floor Sadana House 570. P.B. Marg, Varli Mumbai, 400018 ... Appellants versus Mahesh Koram S/o Sudarshan Koram Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Joba, Near Heeralal Kashyap, Post Office Joba, Tehsil And District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh ... Respondent (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellants : Mr. Shobhit Koshta, Advocate. For Respondent : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 23.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. Shobhit Koshta, learned counsel, appearing for the appellants. 2. Heard on I.A. No. 02/2025, which is an application for condonation of delay of 123 days has been filed by the appellants. ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2025.06.23 17:02:15 +0530 2 3. For the reasons assigned in the application (I.A. No. 02/2025), the same is allowed. Delay in filing the instant appeal is hereby condoned. 4. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, we proceed to hear the matter finally. 5. The present writ appeal is preferred against the order dated 08.11.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition bearing WPC No. 2081/2014 whereby, the writ petition filed by the appellants was dismissed. 6. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants Branch Manager, Mahindra & Mahindra Finance Service Limited, C.G. & Manager, Mahindra & Mahindra Finance Service Limited Corporation Office, Mumbai, in the impugned writ petition, have challenged the award dated 13.08.2014 passed by the learned Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Bastar place Jagdalpur (hereinafter be referred as 'PLA(PUS)'] in Case No. 13/2013 by which, while entertaining application of the respondent/Mahesh Koram filed under Section 22 (A) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (hereinafter be referred as 'the Act, 1987'), a compensation to the tune of Rs.2,71,559/- with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of application till its realization, Rs.20,000/- towards mental trauma, Rs.1,000/- towards litigation expenses and Rs. 1,500/- Advocate's fee, total Rs.2,91,559/- was directed to be paid by the appellants jointly and severally to the respondent- Mahesh Koram. 3 7. Thereafter, the respondent- Mahesh Koram has filed an application under Section 22-A of the Act, 1987 stating that he had purchased tractor bearing registration No.CG17-G-3640 and trolley bearing registration No.CG17- G-3641 for a total consideration of amount of Rs.7,56,000/-. Out of which, an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- was financed through the petitioners herein. It is averred that despite the fact that an amount of Rs.2,24,000/- was due and that the respondent has not significantly defaulted in payment of monthly installments, the petitioners have sold the tractor and trolley without the knowledge of the respondent, due to which, he/respondent has quantified the loss at Rs.5,52,000/-. The respondent- Mahesh Koram tried its level best to get the matter amicably settled between them, however, when nothing was done, he filed an application under the afore- mentioned Section of the Act, 1987. The learned PLA(PUS) at District Court, Bastar at Jagdalpur has called the parties and on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the PLA(PUS) framed issues in this case and after recording evidence of the respective parties, passed an award. 8. Against the aforesaid award dated 13.08.2014 passed by the PLA(PUS), the writ petition bearing WPC No.2081/2014 has been filed by the appellants/writ petitioners, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 08.11.2024. 9. Being aggrieved with the order passed by the learned Single 4 Judge vide order dated 08.11.2024, instant writ appeal has been filed. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Single Judge has erred in not appreciating the fact that the parties with their consent free will, have entered into an agreement regarding the terms of finance. The respondent has not disputed the execution and terms and conditions of the agreement. He further submits that a bare perusal of the Clause 26 of the agreement provides that in case of any dispute, the parties are required to refer the dispute to the arbitrator despite the same the matter was adjudicated by the Lok Adalat which is illegal, perverse and against the provision of law. It is contended that the learned Single Judge erred in not considering the well settled proposition of law that when there exists an alternative efficacious remedy, the Court must restrain from interfering with the same. Hence, in the present Lok Adalat (Public Utility Service) was not all justified in passing the impugned award and exercising its jurisdiction when there is existence of an alternative remedy of arbitration as per the terms of the loan agreement. He submits that the learned Single Judge has erred in not appreciating the fact that the Lok Adalat has no adjudicatory powers. Hence, the entire proceedings and impugned award is liable to be set-aside. It has been further contended that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that the respondents have failed to point out any deficiency of service by the writ appellants in order to be entitled 5 for compensation amount. As per the facts and circumstances of the case as also the evidence on record, the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 08.11.2024 deserves to be quashed. 11. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with writ appeal. 12. Considering the matter in its entirety and after considering the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the appellants as also perusing the impugned order, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has rightly passed the impugned order observing as follows:- “9. From perusal of the pleadings of the parties and the material available on record, it is quite vivid that the respondent has successfully proved that petitioners have not taken any action as per the terms and conditions of Insurance for selling the vehicle of the respondent in lieu of loan and no document has been presented by the petitioners regarding the sale of the vehicle and that after the sale, the remaining amount has also not been paid to the respondent, which falls in the category of deficiency of 6 service, hence, the learned PLA (PUS) allowed the claim in part in respect of the application filed by the respondent and passed the impugned award. Thus, looking to the finding of PLA (PUS) coupled with the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, I am of the considered opinion that the judgment cited by the respondent as well as perusal of the application along with documents, the present matter comes within the ambit of settlement under Section 22 (C) of the Act, 1987, which has rightly been decided by the PLA (PUS). 10. In the fallout, I do not find any substantial reason to set aside/quash the impugned award dated 13.08.2014 passed by the learned Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services) Bastar place Jagdalpur. As such, the petition being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed.” 13. Taking into account the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the firm view that learned Single Judge has passed the impugned order with cogent and justifiable reasons as 7 in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, on a plain reading of order, we do not notice any such palpable infirmities or perversities, as such, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. 14. In the result, the writ appeal lacks merit substance, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru ) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu