M.Y.EQBAL, J. - (1.) IN this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the order dated 4.1.2005 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Ranchi in PLA Case No. 30 of 2004 whereby the preliminary issue with regard to the jurisdiction of the Lok Adalat raised by the petitioner has been decided in favour of the claimant- respondent.
(2.) RESPONDENT No. 2 obtained a Burglary and House Breaking Policy from the petitioner-Insurance Company. As alleged, on 18/19.8.2002 a burglary took place and respondent No. 2 submitted claim with the Insurance Company for a loss of Rs. 11,14,577/-. For the said occurrence F.I.R. was also lodged. Subsequently, the claim of respondent No. 2 was repudiated by the Insurance Company. In the meantime, respondent No. 2 filed Complaint Case No. 255 of 2004 before the District Consumer Forum, Ranchi which was dismissed by the Consumer Forum by order dated 31.8.2004 holding that deficiency in service relating to a commercial activity is not to be considered by Consumer Forum as such service has been excluded from the purview of the Act. Accordingly, the complaint is not at all maintainable in this Forum. Respondent No. 2 then filed this Claim before Permanent Lok Adalat, Ranchi by reducing the claim amount to Rs. 9,80,000/-. On being noticed, the petitioner-Insurance Company appeared and filed objection stating, inter alia, that the claim before the Permanent Lok Adalat is not maintainable. It is stated that the criminal case instituted on the basis of F.I.R. is still pending and the same is at the investigation stage. Petitioner also denied and disputed the claim of the respondents and asserted that the Permanent Lok Adalat has no jurisdiction to entertain the claim of the respondents. Permanent Lok Adalat after entertaining the claim application for pre-litigation conciliation and settlement under the provisions of Section 22-C of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 proceeded to decide the preliminary issue with regard to its jurisdiction and held that it has jurisdiction to entertain the application and further held that application is maintainable before the Permanent Lok Adalat. Hence, this writ petition.
(3.) MR . V. Shivnath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner assailed the impugned order as being contrary to provisions of Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (in short the Act). Learned counsel submitted that a criminal case under Section 379, IPC was registered and since the offence under Section 379, IPC is not a compoundable offence, the Permanent Lok Adalat (in short PLA) has no jurisdiction to entertain the claim of the respondents. Learned counsel drawn my attention to relevant provisions of the said Act and submitted that the impugned order cannot be sustained in law.;