Ranjit Singh Sarkaria, J. - (1.) THE Petitioners have filed this writ petition to challenge the award dated 23.9.2009 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Ludhiana.
(2.) THE facts leading to the award are that three sealed cartons of Hosiery Goods were accepted by the Petitioners for dispatch and a common carrier engaged in the services of Public Transport, from M/s Oswal Woolen Mills Limited, Industrial Area, Ludhiana, to M/s New Selection House, Khatri Tola, Azamgarh., U.P. The said consignment was insured by New India Assurance Company and was consigned to consignee as "self". The consignment was delivered at the destination on 20.10.2004, but was not received by the consignee till 9.11.2004. It is averred that the cartons at the time of delivery were in good, safe and sound condition and no objection was raised by the consignee. It is also averred that the consignee had opened the consignment subsequently in the absence of any representative or agent of the Petitioners and raised a claim to the extent of Rs. 34,876/ -. It is alleged that no notice was served by the consignee or consignor or insurer to the Petitioners. The Insurance Company, accordingly, settled the claim of the consignee to the extent of Rs. 34,876/ -on account of short delivery. The New India Assurance Company, accordingly, approached the Lok Adalat, Ludhiana, under Section 22C of Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. This claim of the Insurance Company has been allowed against the Petitioner -Transport Company. Though the Petitioners would raise number of preliminary objections including the objection relating to the jurisdiction of the Permanent Lok Adalat to go into the question, but for the time being I am not going into that aspect as in my view the claim as has been allowed by the Lok Adalat on merit, may not be sustainable.
(3.) A perusal of the order passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, would show that Lok Adalat has primarily decided the case on the ground that all material facts were admitted by the Respondents in the reply. Besides it was noticed that the documents placed on record also substantiate the allegations contained in the petition. The legal objection taken in the written statement concerning the jurisdiction and maintainability of the petition was also negated. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners has drawn my attention to written statement filed on behalf of the Petitioners before the Lok Adalat. The averment in regard to the short receipt of the consignment was made in paras 5 & 6 of the petition. I have gone through the contents of reply filed to paras 5 & 6 of the petition, filed by the Insurance Company before the Lok Adalat. The reply would not indicate in any manner that the contents of these paras were admitted by the Petitioners. The admission, if any, was limited to the extent that the consignment ought to have delivered at the destination. Rest of the contents of these paras were denied vehemently and were termed as incorrect and wrong to the very knowledge of the Petitioners. There was also specific denial of the remaining contents thereof. So much so that the Petitioners had termed the contents false, frivolous, brazen, evasive and whimsical. It is pleaded that the same was only a false ploy to extract money from the Petitioners by hook and crook under the garb of false pleadings. The responsibility to pay this amount by the Petitioners was specifically disputed on various other grounds. In this background to allow the claim of the Respondents on the ground that the facts pleaded in the petition stood admitted, cannot be sustained. The award passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Ludhiana, being on wrong factual basis cannot be sustained. Learned Counsel for the Respondents has not been able to dispute this position in any manner.;