Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. - (1.) This petition is directed against the order dated 17.11.2011 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Ludhiana [for short 'the PLA'] by which an application filed by the petitioner under Section 22C of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 [for short 'the Act] has been dismissed.
(2.) In brief, the truck bearing Registration No.PB-10-CF-9565, owned by the petitioner, was insured with National Insurance Company Limited (respondent No.2) vide policy No.401603/31/08/6300001914 from 17.3.2009 to 16.3.2010. The said truck met with an accident on 30.7.2009 and was badly damaged. Respondent No.2 was appointed surveyor, who allowed the petitioner to get the vehicle repaired from the workshop of its choice. The surveyor visited the workshop and inspected the vehicle. The repair bill issued by the workshop was submitted to respondent No.2. However, the claim set up by the petitioner was repudiated by respondent No.2, thus, an application under Section 22C(1) of the Act was filed by the petitioner before the PLA for the recovery of Rs. 1,93,600/- along with future interest @ 18% from 30.7.2009 to 30.9.2010. Respondent No.2 repudiated the claim of the petitioner on the basis of report dated 28.10.2009 submitted by the Investigator Surinder Kumar Sethi, as per which, at the time of accident, driver of the vehicle Baldev Singh was not holding valid driving license as his driving license bearing DL No.39551 was issued on 9.1.1988 and was valid upto 8.1.2001. The said driving license was further renewed w.e.f. 16.9.2009 vide renewal of DL No.11125 and was valid upto 15.9.2012 whereas, the vehicle met with the accident on 30.7.2009. The PLA dismissed the application of the petitioner, upholding the repudiation of the claim by respondent No.2 on the ground that the driver was not holding effective and valid driving license at the time of accident.
(3.) Aggrieved against the order of the PLA dated 17.11.2011, the present petition has been filed in which learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the PLA had no jurisdiction to decide the matter of compensation, invoking its power under Section 22C(8) of the Act, because the matter of compensation, on account of an accident of a motor vehicle, can be adjudicated only by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal [for short 'the Tribunal] constituted under Section 165 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [for short 'the Act of 1988'] and the PLA could have exercised its jurisdiction only for the conciliation between the parties at the pre-litigation stage. In support of his submission, he has relied upon a Division Bench judgment of the Kerala High Court, rendered in the case of "Bhoopesh Vs. New India Assuranec Co. Ltd., 2010 1 RCR(Civ) 362".;