CWP-15954 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT 202 DHFL PRAMERICA LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD THE PERMANENT LOK ADALAT & ANR CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Present: SUVIR SEHGAL 1. Constitution of India certiorari Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Jalandhar. 2. Legal Services Authorit (PUS) alleging that Balwinder Singh (deceased) had obtained a life insurance policy from the petitioner period of 17 years. Balwinder Singh suffered a 15954-2016 (O & M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP Date of decision: DHFL PRAMERICA LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD VS. PERMANENT LOK ADALAT & ANR CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL Mr. Karan Nehra, Advocate and Mr. Harvinder Thakur, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ajaivir Singh, Advocate for respondent No.2. **** SEHGAL, J. Instant petition has been filed Constitution of India inter alia for issuance of a writ in the nature of quashing award dated 21.03.2016, Annexure P Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services) Jalandhar. Respondent No.2 filed an application under Section 22 Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, (for short “the Act”) alleging that Balwinder Singh (deceased) had obtained a life insurance policy from the petitioner on 04.06.2012 period of 17 years. Balwinder Singh suffered a -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-15954-2016 (O & M) Date of decision:13.08.2025 DHFL PRAMERICA LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD ...PETITIONER PERMANENT LOK ADALAT & ANR ...RESPONDENT SUVIR SEHGAL Mr. Karan Nehra, Advocate and Mr. Harvinder Thakur, Advocate Instant petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of issuance of a writ in the nature of 21.03.2016, Annexure P-4, passed by the Services) (for short “PLA (PUS) an application under Section 22-C of the (for short “the Act”) before PLA alleging that Balwinder Singh (deceased) had obtained a life on 04.06.2012 for Rs.32 lacs for a period of 17 years. Balwinder Singh suffered a massive heart attack and died PETITIONER ESPONDENTS under Articles 226/227 of issuance of a writ in the nature of 4, passed by the (PUS)”), of the before PLA alleging that Balwinder Singh (deceased) had obtained a life for Rs.32 lacs for a and died Sheetal 2025.08.26 10:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Chandigarh CWP-15954 on 18.06.2013 claim under the policy that the deceased ha existing disease of time of purchas higher amount, Section 22 petitioner deceased was taking treatment from Hospital, Ludhiana taken that After both PLA(PUS) interest @ 9% 3. adhere to the procedure prescribed for adjudicating a claim under the He has made a reference to PLA(PUS) dispute on merits 4. impugned merits after settlement could not be arrived at between the parties. 5. that there is 15954-2016 (O & M) .2013. Being the nominee, his widow, under the policy, which was repudiated on 25.07.2014 on the ground that the deceased had withheld material disease of “DM, Alcoholic Liver Disease, Cirrhosis and PHT” time of purchasing the insurance policy higher amount, respondent No.2 filed an Section 22-C of the Act, for a claim of petitioner contested the claim and filed a reply, Annexure P deceased was taking treatment from Hospital, Ludhiana, but did not disclose it taken that the deceased had suppressed material facts f fter both the parties led their respective evidence PLA(PUS) passed an award of Rs.20 lacs in @ 9% from the date of filing of the petition. Counsel for the petitioner has adhere to the procedure prescribed for adjudicating a claim under the He has made a reference to Sections 22 PLA(PUS) failed to formulate the terms of settlement b dispute on merits. Per contra, counsel for respondent No.2 has supported the impugned award and asserts that PLA(PUS) merits after settlement could not be arrived at between the parties. Having heard counsel for the parties, this re is substance in the argument raised -2- . Being the nominee, his widow, respondent No.2 lodged a , which was repudiated on 25.07.2014 on the ground withheld material information that he had a pre , Alcoholic Liver Disease, Cirrhosis and PHT” at the insurance policy. Although, the policy was for a n application, Annexure P-2, under claim of Rs.25 lacs. Upon appearance, filed a reply, Annexure P-3, stated that Dayanand Medical College and it in the proposal form. A stand was had suppressed material facts from the petitioner respective evidence, vide Annexure P award of Rs.20 lacs in favour of respondent No.2 with from the date of filing of the petition. has argued that PLA(PUS) did not adhere to the procedure prescribed for adjudicating a claim under the A 22-C to 22-E, ibid, to contend that failed to formulate the terms of settlement before determining ounsel for respondent No.2 has supported the PLA(PUS) has decided the dispute on merits after settlement could not be arrived at between the parties. eard counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view substance in the argument raised by counsel for the petitioner respondent No.2 lodged a , which was repudiated on 25.07.2014 on the ground pre- at the the policy was for a under appearance, stated that Dayanand Medical College and stand was the petitioner. Annexure P-4, with did not Act. that the ounsel for respondent No.2 has supported the has decided the dispute on ourt is of the view by counsel for the petitioner. A Sheetal 2025.08.26 10:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Chandigarh CWP-15954 perusal of order dated 12 sides filed addressed repudiation record that in petitioner agrees to pay petition. P upon the parties. PLA(PUS) petitioner PLA(PUS) between the parties the Act. 6. 2017 (1) PLR 15954-2016 (O & M) perusal of order dated 12.08.2015, Annexure P sides filed their respective response, PLA(PUS) addressed by counsel for the parties and came to the conclusion that the udiation of the claim by the petitioner is record that in its considered opinion, petitioner agrees to pay death claim without interest as claimed in the Proposed terms of settlement were formulated upon the parties. It is evident from this order PLA(PUS) heard the parties on merits; and then framed the terms of settlement PLA(PUS) adjudicated the dispute on merits before between the parties. This is in clear breach of the procedure laid down under In Vijay Pal Verma Vs. Permanent Lok Adalat and others ) PLR 311, a Coordinate Bench of this Court “7. Section 22C of the Act categorically provides that the application under Section 22C(1) can be filed only before the dispute is brought to the Court, meaning thereby it would not be maintainable if the same dispute is pending between the parties in the Court. It further provides that the Lok Adalat shall not decide any case in which the issue is relating to an compoundable under any law. It further provides that it would also stay/keep away its hands to interfere in the matter in which it has no pecuniary jurisdiction. However, once an application is maintainable, it has to be dealt with by the Lok Adalat in terms of the provisions -3- nnexure P-7, shows that after both the PLA(PUS) considered the arguments counsel for the parties and came to the conclusion that the of the claim by the petitioner is illegal. PLA(PUS) proceeded to dispute can be settled, in case without interest as claimed in the were formulated and served them from this order that at the first instance ; rejected the stand taken by the the terms of settlement. In other words, adjudicated the dispute on merits before proposing a settlement clear breach of the procedure laid down under Vijay Pal Verma Vs. Permanent Lok Adalat and others of this Court has observed as under: Section 22C of the Act categorically provides that the application under Section 22C(1) can be filed before the dispute is brought to the Court, meaning thereby it would not be maintainable if the same dispute is pending between the parties in the Court. It further provides that the Lok Adalat shall not decide any case in which the issue is relating to an offence which is not compoundable under any law. It further provides that it keep away its hands to interfere in the matter in which it has no pecuniary jurisdiction. However, once an application is maintainable, it has to the Lok Adalat in terms of the provisions both the the arguments counsel for the parties and came to the conclusion that the proceeded to in case, without interest as claimed in the them instance rejected the stand taken by the n other words, a settlement clear breach of the procedure laid down under Vijay Pal Verma Vs. Permanent Lok Adalat and others has observed as under:- Section 22C of the Act categorically provides that the application under Section 22C(1) can be filed before the dispute is brought to the Court, meaning thereby it would not be maintainable if the same dispute is pending between the parties in the Court. It further provides that the Lok Adalat shall not decide any case in offence which is not compoundable under any law. It further provides that it keep away its hands to interfere in the matter in which it has no pecuniary jurisdiction. However, once an application is maintainable, it has to the Lok Adalat in terms of the provisions Sheetal 2025.08.26 10:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Chandigarh CWP-15954 15954-2016 (O & M) of Section 22C(3) onwards in which Sections 22C (4) and (5) provide for conducting the conciliation proceedings and if it is found that there exists elements of a settlement in the conciliation proceedings, which to the parties, it is the duty of the Lok Adalat to formulate the terms of a possible settlement of the dispute and in case the settlement is successful, then the Lok Adalat shall pass the award and furnish a copy thereof to each of the parties. A careful reading of Sections 22C (3) to (6) provides a mechanism of deciding the lis between the parties by way of conciliation which has to be followed by the Lok Adalat religiously before it takes over an avatar of a Court to decide the lis betw the basis of evidence led by them. It is needless to mention that the Lok Adalat is required to reflect in its day to day proceedings about compliance of Sections 22C(3) to (7) of the Act and it is also expected of the parties appearing before the Lok Adalat to ask for conciliation proceedings before having their case adjudicated on merits. It is also pertinent to mention that since the award/order of the Lok Adalat, which has to deal with the issues pertaining to the public utility services, defined in Section 22A(b) of the Act, is not appealable, therefore, a larger number of writ petitions are being filed in this Court against the award/orders of the Lok Adalat which are decided on merits in terms of Section 22C(8) of the Act and genera being raised about non contained in Sections 22C(3) to (7) of the Act. It may also be mentioned here that with the advent of alternative disputes resolution mechanism, Section 89 has been added as Part V (Spe -4- of Section 22C(3) onwards in which Sections 22C (4) and (5) provide for conducting the conciliation proceedings and if it is found that there exists elements of a settlement in the conciliation proceedings, which may be acceptable to the parties, it is the duty of the Lok Adalat to formulate the terms of a possible settlement of the dispute and in case the settlement is successful, then the Lok Adalat shall pass the award and furnish a copy thereof to each arties. A careful reading of Sections 22C (3) to (6) provides a mechanism of deciding the lis between the parties by way of conciliation which has to be followed by the Lok Adalat religiously before it takes over an avatar of a Court to decide the lis between the parties on the basis of evidence led by them. It is needless to mention that the Lok Adalat is required to reflect in its day to day proceedings about compliance of Sections 22C(3) to (7) of the Act and it is also expected of the before the Lok Adalat to ask for conciliation proceedings before having their case adjudicated on merits. It is also pertinent to mention that since the award/order of the Lok Adalat, which has to deal with the issues pertaining to the public utility ces, defined in Section 22A(b) of the Act, is not appealable, therefore, a larger number of writ petitions are being filed in this Court against the award/orders of the Lok Adalat which are decided on merits in terms of Section 22C(8) of the Act and generally the issues are being raised about non-compliance of the provisions contained in Sections 22C(3) to (7) of the Act. It may also be mentioned here that with the advent of alternative disputes resolution mechanism, Section 89 has been added as Part V (Special Proceedings) in the Code of of Section 22C(3) onwards in which Sections 22C (4) and (5) provide for conducting the conciliation proceedings and if it is found that there exists elements of a settlement may be acceptable to the parties, it is the duty of the Lok Adalat to formulate the terms of a possible settlement of the dispute and in case the settlement is successful, then the Lok Adalat shall pass the award and furnish a copy thereof to each arties. A careful reading of Sections 22C (3) to (6) provides a mechanism of deciding the lis between the parties by way of conciliation which has to be followed by the Lok Adalat religiously before it takes over an een the parties on the basis of evidence led by them. It is needless to mention that the Lok Adalat is required to reflect in its day to day proceedings about compliance of Sections 22C(3) to (7) of the Act and it is also expected of the before the Lok Adalat to ask for conciliation proceedings before having their case adjudicated on merits. It is also pertinent to mention that since the award/order of the Lok Adalat, which has to deal with the issues pertaining to the public utility ces, defined in Section 22A(b) of the Act, is not appealable, therefore, a larger number of writ petitions are being filed in this Court against the award/orders of the Lok Adalat which are decided on merits in terms of lly the issues are compliance of the provisions contained in Sections 22C(3) to (7) of the Act. It may also be mentioned here that with the advent of alternative disputes resolution mechanism, Section 89 has been cial Proceedings) in the Code of Sheetal 2025.08.26 10:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Chandigarh CWP-15954 7. 22-C (1) of the writing supported by Thereupon, commence the conciliation proceedings and amicable settlement or pressure o finds that there exists an element of settlement the parties copies to the settlement is arrived at between the in terms of the at any consensus, Section 22 15954-2016 (O & M) Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the "CPC"), in which powers have been given to the Court to formulate the terms of settlement if it appears to it that there exists elements of a settlement which may be acceptable to the parties and after receiving the observations of the parties, the Court may re the terms of a possible settlement and refer the same for arbitration, conciliation, judicial settlement including settlement through Lok Adalat or media effort is more on resolving the dispute between the parties by resorting to the alternative disputes resolution mechanism than the use of adjudicatory process in which the parties litigate for several years in appeals filed before various forums. After an application is received by of the Act, it shall direct both the p writing supported by any documents or Thereupon, under Sub-sections (4) and (5 commence the conciliation proceedings and amicable settlement. While doing so, PLA(PUS) or pressure on the parties. If during con finds that there exists an element of settlement the parties, it shall formulate the terms of settlement of dispute and supply to the parties to enable them to settlement is arrived at between them. Thereafter in terms of the settlement. However, in case any consensus, PLA(PUS) has been conferred with the jurisdiction under ection 22-C(8) to decide the differences by passing an -5- Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the "CPC"), in which powers have been given to the Court to formulate the terms of settlement if it appears to it that there exists elements of a settlement which may be eptable to the parties and after receiving the observations of the parties, the Court may re-formulate the terms of a possible settlement and refer the same for arbitration, conciliation, judicial settlement including settlement through Lok Adalat or mediation. Thus, an effort is more on resolving the dispute between the parties by resorting to the alternative disputes resolution mechanism than the use of adjudicatory process in which the parties litigate for several years in appeals filed rums.” fter an application is received by PLA(PUS) under Section the parties to file their statements evidence they intend to rely upon. 5) of Section 22-C, PLA(PUS) shall commence the conciliation proceedings and assist the parties to reach at an PLA(PUS) will not exert any coercion during conciliation proceedings, PLA(PUS) finds that there exists an element of settlement, which may be acceptable to shall formulate the terms of settlement of dispute and supply parties to enable them to reach at an agreement before . Thereafter, an award shall be passed owever, in case, the parties are unable to reach has been conferred with the jurisdiction under to decide the differences by passing an award on merits b Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the "CPC"), in which powers have been given to the Court to formulate the terms of settlement if it appears to it that there exists elements of a settlement which may be eptable to the parties and after receiving the formulate the terms of a possible settlement and refer the same for arbitration, conciliation, judicial settlement including tion. Thus, an effort is more on resolving the dispute between the parties by resorting to the alternative disputes resolution mechanism than the use of adjudicatory process in which the parties litigate for several years in appeals filed ection s in evidence they intend to rely upon. shall the parties to reach at an coercion PLA(PUS) which may be acceptable to shall formulate the terms of settlement of dispute and supply efore be passed reach has been conferred with the jurisdiction under award on merits by Sheetal 2025.08.26 10:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Chandigarh CWP-15954 applying the principles of fair play, laid down in determination PLA(PUS) the other adopted by P-7, is dehors sustained concerned 8. Annexure P proceeding further strictly in accordance with the provisions of the 9. 10.09.2025 10. within a period of 6 months from the date of 11. 12. 13.08.2025 sheetal 15954-2016 (O & M) ing the principles of fair play, equity, natural justice and objectivity as laid down in Section 22-D of the Act. It is determination of the dispute under Section 22 PLA(PUS), in case, the parties fail to arrive at the other way around. It cannot, therefore, adopted by PLA(PUS) as is evident from order dated 12 hors the statutory provision. Impugned and the matter deserves to be remitted back to ed. For the afore-going reasons, Annexure P-4, is set aside and the matter is proceeding further strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Parties are directed to appear before 10.09.2025 for further proceedings in accordance with law. It is expected that PLA(PUS) within a period of 6 months from the date of Writ petition is disposed of. Pending application(s) is/are disposed of. .2025 Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No -6- equity, natural justice and objectivity as ct. It is, therefore, apparent that ection 22-C(8) has to be done by the parties fail to arrive at a mutual settlement and not , therefore, be disputed that the procedure as is evident from order dated 12.08.2015, Annexure the statutory provision. Impugned award, therefore, cannot be the matter deserves to be remitted back to PLA(PUS) going reasons, impugned award dated 21.03.2016 is set aside and the matter is remitted to PLA(PUS) proceeding further strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Parties are directed to appear before PLA(PUS), Jalandhar, for further proceedings in accordance with law. PLA(PUS) will conclude the proceedings within a period of 6 months from the date of appearance of the parties. Pending application(s) is/are disposed of. (SUVIR SEHGAL) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No equity, natural justice and objectivity as apparent that be done by mutual settlement and not be disputed that the procedure nnexure cannot be PLA(PUS) 2016, for , on will conclude the proceedings Sheetal 2025.08.26 10:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Chandigarh