Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 1234 (RAJ)

Chandra Shekhar v. Parasmani Road Lines Pvt. Ltd.

2004-08-27

GYAN SUDHA MISRA

body2004
Honble MISRA, J.–The question that emerges for consideration in this writ petition is whether a consenting party, who had agreed for the settlement before the Lok Adalat after which an award was also passed in his favour could be allowed to challenge the same before the High Court by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in absence of any plea that the settlement took place under any kind of duress or undue influence. (2). The claimant-appellant suffered an injury as a result of the accident caused by Truck bearing No. RJ-14-G-2698 which was insured with the respondent No. 3-The New India Assurance Company Ltd. A proceedings was therefore, initiated before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur and while this proceeding was pending, the matter was referred to the Lok-Adalat which was held in the year 1996. The claimant-appellant who is working as Lower Division Clerk in M/s Parasmani Road Lines Pvt. Ltd., had sustained injuries on several parts of his body, but after the treatment, the injury which had been sustained by him in the accident, has affected his left hand. During pendency of this proceeding before the Tribunal, a Lok Adalat was held in the year 1996 and a settlement was arrived at between the claimant and the New India Assurance Company Ltd. for a sum of Rs. 45,000/-. An order was thereafter passed by the Lok Adalat regarding settlement of the claim. (3). It has been stated that this award passed before the Lok- Adalat was not honoured by the respondent No. 3-The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and therefore, it insisted for adjudication of the claim before the Tribunal and thereafter, the claim was scrutinised before the Tribunal and there also the award of Rs. 45,000/- which was passed in the Lok-Adalat was maintained. (4). The claimant-appellant feeling aggrieved with this amount, has filed this appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation and it has been submitted by the counsel for the claimant-appellant that the settlement which took place before the Lok-Adalat was not honoured by the Insurance Company and that is why the proceedings on before the Tribunal after which the parties led evidence and th award of Rs. 45,000/- only was passed by the Tribunal on this occasion also and therefore, this appeal should be held maintainable for enhancement of the award. (5). 45,000/- only was passed by the Tribunal on this occasion also and therefore, this appeal should be held maintainable for enhancement of the award. (5). The argument and the contention raised on behalf of the claimant-appellant is without any substance in my opinion for the Tribunal, after settlement of the claim before the Lok adalat had no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the claim in view of Section 21 (2) of the Legal Services Authorities Act 1987 which specifically bars an appeal against the settlement arrived at before the Lok-Adalat and lays down as follows: ``21 (2) Every award made by a Lok Adalat shall be final and binding on all the parties to the dispute, and no appeal shall lie to any Court against the award. (6). Merely because the Insurance Company had not agreed for settlement, the Tribunal had no right or jurisdiction to proceed in the matter unless the award/settlement recorded before the Lok Adalat had been set aside by way of an appeal preferred by the insurance company. The insurance company on its own could not have refused to honour the award for if the insurance company was aggrieved of the award passed by the Lok Adalat on the ground that the settlement was forced upon the insurance company, it could have refused to agree to the same. But once the settlement took place and thereafter the award was also passed by a the Lok Adalat, the same could not have been interfered with by the Tribunal. Therefore, the entire proceeding in my view, which was conducted before the Tribunal after recording of the settlement of the claim before the Lok-Adalat will have to be treated as void, illegal and non-est having been conducted without jurisdiction and the award which was passed by the Lok-Adalat had to be honoured. Infact the settlement which took place before the Lok-Adalat has also been executed and the amount of Rs. 45,000/- has already been paid to him. (7). In so far as the claimant-appellant is concerned, he was never aggrieved with the settlement of the claim and in view of this position, it is all the more beyond the comprehension of this Court as to how the appellant-claimant has been advised to file the appeal against the same. 45,000/- has already been paid to him. (7). In so far as the claimant-appellant is concerned, he was never aggrieved with the settlement of the claim and in view of this position, it is all the more beyond the comprehension of this Court as to how the appellant-claimant has been advised to file the appeal against the same. One could understand that on account of some technical plea, the insurance company perhaps could have filed the appeal, but the insurance company which in fact had objected to the award has not preferred any appeal. It is rather difficult to appreciate how the consenting party like the claimant-appellant has filed the appeal for enhancement ignoring the fact that he had himself agreed for the amount of compensation settled before the Lok Adalat which has already been paid to him. The appeal at his instance therefore is all the more unacceptable and hence is rejected as not maintainable. Consequently, it stands dismissed at the admission stage itself.