CWP-12988-2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 133 Life Insurance Corporation of India Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Fazilka & others CORAM: HON Present: - Mr. *** JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J 1. The the Constitution of India is seeking (Annexure P-1) whereby allowed respondent’s application filed und Authority Act, 1987 (for short ‘1987 Act’). 2. The insured, who is deceased son of respondent No.2, purchased an insurance policy from petitioner was Rs.5,55,000/ on the basis of policy lodged claim. The petitioner examined the matter and formed an opinion that there was suppression of facts, thus, claim is liable to be repudiated. Accordingly, petitioner rejected her claim an application under Section 22C of 1987 Act before sought response of the petitioner. Matter was tried to be reconciled, however, 2026 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP Date of Decision: Life Insurance Corporation of India Versus Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Fazilka & others HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Mr. Akshay Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner. *** JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral) The petitioner through instant petition under Article the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of Award dated 10.12.2025 1) whereby learned Permanent Lok Adalat (for short ‘PLA’) has allowed respondent’s application filed under Section 22C of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 (for short ‘1987 Act’). The insured, who is deceased son of respondent No.2, purchased an insurance policy from petitioner-insurer on 07.03.2017. was Rs.5,55,000/-. The insured passed away on 26.04.2018. on the basis of policy lodged claim. The petitioner examined the matter and formed an opinion that there was suppression of facts, thus, claim is liable to be repudiated. Accordingly, petitioner rejected her claim an application under Section 22C of 1987 Act before sought response of the petitioner. Matter was tried to be reconciled, however, IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-12988-2026 Date of Decision: 29.04.2026 …Petitioner Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Fazilka & others …Respondents BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Akshay Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner. petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of setting aside of Award dated 10.12.2025 Permanent Lok Adalat (for short ‘PLA’) has er Section 22C of the Legal Services The insured, who is deceased son of respondent No.2, purchased insurer on 07.03.2017. The sum assured passed away on 26.04.2018. Respondent No.2 on the basis of policy lodged claim. The petitioner examined the matter and formed an opinion that there was suppression of facts, thus, claim is liable to be repudiated. Accordingly, petitioner rejected her claim. Respondent No.2 filed an application under Section 22C of 1987 Act before learned PLA which sought response of the petitioner. Matter was tried to be reconciled, however, Petitioner s of setting aside of Award dated 10.12.2025 Permanent Lok Adalat (for short ‘PLA’) has er Section 22C of the Legal Services The insured, who is deceased son of respondent No.2, purchased The sum assured espondent No.2 on the basis of policy lodged claim. The petitioner examined the matter and formed an opinion that there was suppression of facts, thus, claim is liable to be filed PLA which sought response of the petitioner. Matter was tried to be reconciled, however, VIMAL KUMAR 2026.04.30 13:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-12988-2026 was finally adjudicated on merits. L no occasion to repudiate applicant’s claim, thus, petitioner has wrongly rejected the same. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the insured was drug addict, thus, was not entitled to compensation. Learned PLA has wrongly awarded insured am respondent No.2’s claim jurisdiction of learned PLA was barred. Learned PLA cannot invoke jurisdiction where there is dispute between the parties. 4. Heard the arguments and perused the record. 5. From the perusal of record, it is evident that learned PLA has considered that insured did not die due to drugs whereas he was murdered. He was subjected to post subjected to drug screening test on body. The post insured at the time of death as well as prior to death was not may be consuming drug by learned PLA are factually and legally correct and convincing. 6. Learned counsel has raised question of jurisdiction of learned PLA. As per petitioner, learned PLA cannot adjudicate disputed questions. Learned PLA can invoke its jurisdiction where there is element of settlement. The argument raised by the petitioner disputing the fact that insurance services fall within the definition of Utility Services 2026 -2- was finally adjudicated on merits. Learned PLA has concluded that there was occasion to repudiate applicant’s claim, thus, petitioner has wrongly rejected Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the insured was drug addict, thus, was not entitled to compensation. Learned PLA has wrongly awarded insured amount. He further submits that petitioner repudiated respondent No.2’s claim. There was no element of settlement, thus, jurisdiction of learned PLA was barred. Learned PLA cannot invoke jurisdiction where there is dispute between the parties. Heard the arguments and perused the record. From the perusal of record, it is evident that learned PLA has that insured did not die due to drugs whereas he was murdered. He was subjected to post-mortem and no drug was found in his body. H subjected to drug screening test on 09.04.2018 body. The post-mortem report as well as report dated insured at the time of death as well as prior to death was not nsuming drugs much prior to date of incident. by learned PLA are factually and legally correct and convincing. Learned counsel has raised question of jurisdiction of learned PLA. As per petitioner, learned PLA cannot adjudicate disputed questions. Learned PLA can invoke its jurisdiction where there is element of settlement. The argument raised by the petitioner is misconceived. The petitioner is not disputing the fact that insurance services fall within the definition of Utility Services” as defined under Section 22A of the PLA has concluded that there was occasion to repudiate applicant’s claim, thus, petitioner has wrongly rejected Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the insured was a drug addict, thus, was not entitled to compensation. Learned PLA has wrongly He further submits that petitioner repudiated . There was no element of settlement, thus, jurisdiction of learned PLA was barred. Learned PLA cannot invoke jurisdiction where there is dispute between the parties. Heard the arguments and perused the record. From the perusal of record, it is evident that learned PLA has that insured did not die due to drugs whereas he was murdered. He mortem and no drug was found in his body. He was also 8 and no drug was found in his report dated 09.04.2018 reveals that insured at the time of death as well as prior to death was not a drug addict. He much prior to date of incident. The findings recorded by learned PLA are factually and legally correct and convincing. Learned counsel has raised question of jurisdiction of learned PLA. As per petitioner, learned PLA cannot adjudicate disputed questions. Learned PLA can invoke its jurisdiction where there is element of settlement. is misconceived. The petitioner is not disputing the fact that insurance services fall within the definition of “Public as defined under Section 22A of the 1987 Act. Section PLA has concluded that there was occasion to repudiate applicant’s claim, thus, petitioner has wrongly rejected a drug addict, thus, was not entitled to compensation. Learned PLA has wrongly He further submits that petitioner repudiated . There was no element of settlement, thus, jurisdiction of learned PLA was barred. Learned PLA cannot invoke From the perusal of record, it is evident that learned PLA has that insured did not die due to drugs whereas he was murdered. He e was also and no drug was found in his that drug addict. He The findings recorded Learned counsel has raised question of jurisdiction of learned PLA. As per petitioner, learned PLA cannot adjudicate disputed questions. Learned PLA can invoke its jurisdiction where there is element of settlement. is misconceived. The petitioner is not Public Section VIMAL KUMAR 2026.04.30 13:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-12988-2026 22C(7) of 1987 Act provides that there would be an attempt to the dispute. Section 22C(8) provides that i learned PLA shall decide the dispute deciding a dispute on merits, justice, objectivity, fair extracts of Section 22C and 22D of 1987 Act are reproduced hereinunder: “22C. xx (7) proceedings, is of opinion that there exist elements of settlement in such proceedings which may be acceptable to the parties, it may formulate the terms of a possible settlement of the dispute and give to the part concerned for their observations and in case the parties reach at an agreement on the settlement of the dispute, they shall sign the settlement agreement and the Permanent Lok Adalat shall pass an award in terms thereof and furnish a copy of the same t parties concerned. (8) section ( relate to any offence, 22D. Adalat shall, while conducting conciliation proceedings or deciding a dispute on merit justice, objectivity, fair play, equity and other principles of justice, and shall not be bound and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 7. From the perusal of above quoted Sections, it is quite evident that learned PLA has jurisdiction to decide the dispute on merits. There is rider qua monetary jurisdiction. Learned PLA cannot adjudicate a dispute where value of property exceeds Rs.1 crore 2026 -3- of 1987 Act provides that there would be an attempt to Section 22C(8) provides that if the dispute is not amicably settled, learned PLA shall decide the dispute on merit. deciding a dispute on merits, PLA shall be guided by justice, objectivity, fair-play, equity and other principles of justice. of Section 22C and 22D of 1987 Act are reproduced hereinunder: 22C. Cognizance of cases by Permanent Lok Adalat. xx xx ) When a Permanent Lok Adalat, in the aforesaid conciliation proceedings, is of opinion that there exist elements of settlement in such proceedings which may be acceptable to the parties, it may formulate the terms of a possible settlement of the dispute and give to the part concerned for their observations and in case the parties reach at an agreement on the settlement of the dispute, they shall sign the settlement agreement and the Permanent Lok Adalat shall pass an award in terms thereof and furnish a copy of the same t parties concerned. ) Where the parties fail to reach at an agreement under sub section (7), the Permanent Lok Adalat shall, if the dispute does not relate to any offence, decide the dispute 22D. Procedure of Permanent Lok Adala Adalat shall, while conducting conciliation proceedings or deciding a dispute on merit under this Act, be guided by the principles of natural justice, objectivity, fair play, equity and other principles of justice, and shall not be bound by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872” From the perusal of above quoted Sections, it is quite evident that learned PLA has jurisdiction to decide the dispute on merits. There is rider qua monetary jurisdiction. Learned PLA cannot adjudicate a dispute where value of property exceeds Rs.1 crore. In the present case, amount involved was much of 1987 Act provides that there would be an attempt to amicably settle f the dispute is not amicably settled, Section 22D provides that while shall be guided by the principles of natural play, equity and other principles of justice. Relevant of Section 22C and 22D of 1987 Act are reproduced hereinunder: Cognizance of cases by Permanent Lok Adalat.— xx Lok Adalat, in the aforesaid conciliation proceedings, is of opinion that there exist elements of settlement in such proceedings which may be acceptable to the parties, it may formulate the terms of a possible settlement of the dispute and give to the parties concerned for their observations and in case the parties reach at an agreement on the settlement of the dispute, they shall sign the settlement agreement and the Permanent Lok Adalat shall pass an award in terms thereof and furnish a copy of the same to each of the Where the parties fail to reach at an agreement under sub- ), the Permanent Lok Adalat shall, if the dispute does not decide the dispute. Procedure of Permanent Lok Adalat.—The Permanent Lok Adalat shall, while conducting conciliation proceedings or deciding a under this Act, be guided by the principles of natural justice, objectivity, fair play, equity and other principles of justice, and by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) [….emphasis supplied] From the perusal of above quoted Sections, it is quite evident that learned PLA has jurisdiction to decide the dispute on merits. There is rider qua monetary jurisdiction. Learned PLA cannot adjudicate a dispute where value . In the present case, amount involved was much settle f the dispute is not amicably settled, Section 22D provides that while natural Relevant Lok Adalat, in the aforesaid conciliation proceedings, is of opinion that there exist elements of settlement in such proceedings which may be acceptable to the parties, it may formulate ies concerned for their observations and in case the parties reach at an agreement on the settlement of the dispute, they shall sign the settlement agreement and the Permanent Lok Adalat shall pass an o each of the - ), the Permanent Lok Adalat shall, if the dispute does not The Permanent Lok Adalat shall, while conducting conciliation proceedings or deciding a under this Act, be guided by the principles of natural justice, objectivity, fair play, equity and other principles of justice, and by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) .emphasis supplied] From the perusal of above quoted Sections, it is quite evident that learned PLA has jurisdiction to decide the dispute on merits. There is rider qua monetary jurisdiction. Learned PLA cannot adjudicate a dispute where value . In the present case, amount involved was much VIMAL KUMAR 2026.04.30 13:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-12988-2026 less than jurisdiction of learned PLA, thus, it was quite competent to adjudicate dispute on merits. passed by PLA shall be final and binding on all be called in question in any original suit, application or execution proceedings. Section 22E reads as: “22E. of the Permanent Lok Adalat terms of a settlement agreement shall be final and binding on all the parties thereto and on persons claiming under them. (2) Every award of the Permanent Lok Adalat under this Act shall be deemed to be a decree (3) The award made by the Permanent Lok Adalat under this Act shall be by a majority of the persons constituting the Permanent Lok Adalat. (4) Every award made by the Permanent Lok Adalat under this Act shall be final and shall not be c application or execution proceeding. (5) The Permanent Lok Adalat may transmit any award made by it to a civil court having local jurisdiction and such civil court shall execute the order as if it were a decree made It is factually and legally correct that award passed by PLA examined in writ jurisdiction, however, mandate of Section 22E ignored. The award can be examined in writ jurisdiction if procedural or jurisdiction. There is no such argument or allegation in has passed impugned order after following opportunity of hearing. infirmity in impugned 2026 -4- less than jurisdiction of learned PLA, thus, it was quite competent to adjudicate dispute on merits. In any case, Section 22E of 1987 Act provides that award passed by PLA shall be final and binding on all be called in question in any original suit, application or execution proceedings. Section 22E reads as: 22E. Award of Permanent Lok Adalat to be final of the Permanent Lok Adalat under this Act made either on merit or in terms of a settlement agreement shall be final and binding on all the parties thereto and on persons claiming under them. (2) Every award of the Permanent Lok Adalat under this Act shall be deemed to be a decree of a civil court. (3) The award made by the Permanent Lok Adalat under this Act shall be by a majority of the persons constituting the Permanent Lok Adalat. (4) Every award made by the Permanent Lok Adalat under this Act shall be final and shall not be called in question in any original suit, application or execution proceeding. (5) The Permanent Lok Adalat may transmit any award made by it to a civil court having local jurisdiction and such civil court shall execute the order as if it were a decree made It is factually and legally correct that award passed by PLA examined in writ jurisdiction, however, mandate of Section 22E ignored. The award can be examined in writ jurisdiction if procedural or fundamental error or PLA has passed jurisdiction. There is no such argument or allegation in has passed impugned order after following prescribed procedure and granting opportunity of hearing. Thus, this Court does n infirmity in impugned order warranting interference. less than jurisdiction of learned PLA, thus, it was quite competent to adjudicate Section 22E of 1987 Act provides that award passed by PLA shall be final and binding on all the parties. The award cannot be called in question in any original suit, application or execution proceedings. Award of Permanent Lok Adalat to be final. —(1) Every award under this Act made either on merit or in terms of a settlement agreement shall be final and binding on all the parties thereto and on persons claiming under them. (2) Every award of the Permanent Lok Adalat under this Act shall be of a civil court. (3) The award made by the Permanent Lok Adalat under this Act shall be by a majority of the persons constituting the Permanent Lok Adalat. (4) Every award made by the Permanent Lok Adalat under this Act alled in question in any original suit, (5) The Permanent Lok Adalat may transmit any award made by it to a civil court having local jurisdiction and such civil court shall execute by that court.” It is factually and legally correct that award passed by PLA can be examined in writ jurisdiction, however, mandate of Section 22E cannot be ignored. The award can be examined in writ jurisdiction if there is manifest fundamental error or PLA has passed award beyond its jurisdiction. There is no such argument or allegation in the present case. PLA prescribed procedure and granting his Court does not find any factual or legal order warranting interference. less than jurisdiction of learned PLA, thus, it was quite competent to adjudicate Section 22E of 1987 Act provides that award the parties. The award cannot be called in question in any original suit, application or execution proceedings. (1) Every award under this Act made either on merit or in terms of a settlement agreement shall be final and binding on all the (2) Every award of the Permanent Lok Adalat under this Act shall be (3) The award made by the Permanent Lok Adalat under this Act shall (4) Every award made by the Permanent Lok Adalat under this Act alled in question in any original suit, (5) The Permanent Lok Adalat may transmit any award made by it to a civil court having local jurisdiction and such civil court shall execute can be cannot be there is manifest award beyond its the present case. PLA prescribed procedure and granting ot find any factual or legal VIMAL KUMAR 2026.04.30 13:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-12988-2026 8. In the wake of above discussion and findings, this Court is of the considered opinion that petition deserves to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed. 9. Pending Misc. 29.04.2026 Vimal Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 2026 -5- In the wake of above discussion and findings, this Court is of the considered opinion that petition deserves to be dismissed and accordingly Pending Misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No In the wake of above discussion and findings, this Court is of the considered opinion that petition deserves to be dismissed and accordingly application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (JAGMOHAN BANSAL) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No In the wake of above discussion and findings, this Court is of the considered opinion that petition deserves to be dismissed and accordingly (JAGMOHAN BANSAL) VIMAL KUMAR 2026.04.30 13:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document