Lok Adalat Cannot Deny Opportunity To Cross-Examine In Violation Of Principles Of Natural Justice Even In Its Summary Proceedings: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has held that a Lok Adalat cannot deny cross-examination opportunity to parties in violation of principles of natural justice even in its summary proceedings.

The Court was considering a Writ Petition against an order passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat allowing the Respondent Company’s Application seeking recovery of ₹23,981/- on account of the bill raised by the Respondent on the Petitioner.

The division bench of Justice M. S. Sonak and Justice Jitendra Jain observed, "Section 22-D of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 provides for procedure to be adopted by the PLA while conducting conciliation proceedings or deciding the disputes on merit. The said Section provides that the PLA shall 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 and the Indian Evidence Act 1872......the PLA has erroneously denied the cross-examination sought for....".

The Petitioner was represented by Advocate Huzefa Khokhawala.

Facts of the Case

The Respondent Company filed the Application before the Permanent Lok Adalat claiming ₹23,981 in cellular mobile bill consisting international roaming. The Petitioner in her written statement opposed the Application on various grounds mentioned therein including the ground that “Customer Agreement Form” does not bear the signature of the Petitioner and also the documents annexed to the Application does not bear the photograph of the Petitioner etc.

Later, the Petitioner made an Application for cross- examination of the witness of the respondent, but same was rejected by one of the member of the PLA consisting of three. Subsequently, the impugned order came to be passed allowing the Application of the Respondent and directing the Petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.23,981/- with interest thereon at 6 % p.a. from the date of filing the application till its realization

Reasoning By Court

The Court noted that the impugned order doesn't make any reference of the Petitioner having made an Application for cross-examination which was rejected and no reasons are assigned in this respect as well.

It stressed that Section 22-D of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 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 and the Indian Evidence Act 1872.

The Court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Adaman Timber Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata-II wherein it was observed that denial of cross-examination would render the order a nullity and same would be violative of principles of natural justice and fair play

"In our view, denial of cross-examination by the PLA on an application made by the petitioner without giving any reasons would be contrary to the principles of natural justice and fair play which as per Section 22-D, the PLA is obliged to follow," the Court observed.

Moreover, it was of the view that based on the discrepancies mentioned and the facts being disputed by each party, it was incumbent on the PLA to have granted the opportunity to cross-examine the deponent of the affidavit filed on behalf of the Respondent.

"If the PLA was of the opinion that such disputed facts could not have been adjudicated in summary proceedings, then they ought to have relegated the parties to regular remedies. Merely because the proceedings are summary, in the facts of the present case, the PLA was not justified in denying the cross-examination. In our view, on this very ground the impugned order dated 27 December 2017 ought to be quashed," the Court observed.

The Petition was accordingly allowed.

Cause Title: Bindu Narang vs. Matrix Cellular (International) Services Pvt. Ltd. (2025:BHC-OS:10931)

Click here to read/ download Order