Permanent Lok Adalat jurisdiction is barred where an insurance claim is inseparable from a non-compoundable offence dispute.

A Permanent Lok Adalat cannot entertain a pre-litigation burglary-related insurance claim where deciding the claim necessarily requires resolving whether a non-compoundable offence occurred. The Supreme Court construed the Chapter VI-A jurisdictional proviso broadly and gave meaningful effect to the exclusion for matters relating to non-compoundable offences, while strictly construing the grant of jurisdiction to the special forum. Because the genuineness of the claim was inseparable from a criminal accusation, the dispute fell outside the Permanent Lok Adalat's jurisdiction and the contrary High Court view was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether a Permanent Lok Adalat had jurisdiction to entertain a burglary-related insurance claim when adjudication of the claim necessarily involved a dispute relating to a non-compoundable offence.

Analysis: The statutory scheme of Chapter VI-A of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 permits pre-litigation conciliation and, failing settlement, a determination by the Permanent Lok Adalat, but the jurisdictional proviso excludes matters relating to non-compoundable offences. The expression "relating to an offence" was construed broadly in the context of the statutory object, the finality attached to the award, and the exclusion of civil court jurisdiction. The Court held that where the very genuineness of the claim turns on whether a burglary occurred and the controversy is intertwined with a criminal accusation of a non-compoundable nature, the matter falls outside the jurisdiction of the Permanent Lok Adalat. Provisions conferring jurisdiction on special fora, as well as provisions excluding ordinary civil jurisdiction, must be strictly construed, while the jurisdiction-limiting provisos in the Chapter were to be given meaningful effect.

Conclusion: The Permanent Lok Adalat lacked jurisdiction to decide the claim, and the challenge to the High Court's contrary view succeeded.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the appeal was allowed on the ground that the dispute was not fit for adjudication by the Permanent Lok Adalat under the statutory exception.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the adjudication of a pre-litigation claim before a Permanent Lok Adalat is inextricably linked to a dispute relating to a non-compoundable offence, the statutory exclusion applies and jurisdiction is barred.

---