J U D G M E N T M.V.O.P.No.444 of 1997 was filed before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District and Sessions Judge, Prakasam District, at Ongole, in the name of respondents 1 and 2, claiming compensation, on account of the death of one Naidu Raghava. It was pleaded that Raghava died in an accident, involving vehicle bearing No.AP 7/U 4478, owned by the 3rd respondent and insured with the petitioner. The matter was referred to Lok Adalat, and through an award dated 27-12-1997, a sum of Rs.79,000 was awarded in favour of respondents 1 and 2. Half of the amount was permitted to be withdrawn, and the balance was directed to be kept in a fixed deposit. 2. The petitioner came to know, that the 1 st respondent filed a complaint before the Police Station, Maddipadu, stating that a writer of that police station, by name, Kola Masthan, (P.C. 536) played fraud upon himself and the 2nd respondent, and presented a claim petition, in respect of a beggar, by name, Raghava, who died on 22-5-1997. The complaint resulted in C.C.No.206 of 1999, in the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate-cum-Special Mobile Court, Ongole. It was stated that, after detailed trial into the matter, the trial Court acquitted Kola Masthan, but convicted the respondents 1 and 2 herein, for the offence under Sections 420 and 209 IP.C., and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year, and imposed a fine. 3. In the light of this development, the petitioner filed an application before the District Legal Services Authority, to set aside the award dated 27-12-1997. Through an intimation dated 28-1-2005, the Legal Services Authority informed the petitioner that it has no power to set aside the award. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the award was obtained in the Lok Adalat, by playing fraud, and the same deserves to be set aside. 5. Notice sent to respondents 1 and 2 was not served, and with the permission of this Court, the petitioner took out notice, through publication in press, and substituted service was effected. The 3rd respondent is the owner of the vehicle, and is represented by Sri G. Narasimha Rao, learned Counsel. 6. The facts narrated above clearly disclose that fraud of highest order was played on the Court; the 3rd respondent, and the petitioner, claiming compensation, in respect of an unknown person. The 3rd respondent is the owner of the vehicle, and is represented by Sri G. Narasimha Rao, learned Counsel. 6. The facts narrated above clearly disclose that fraud of highest order was played on the Court; the 3rd respondent, and the petitioner, claiming compensation, in respect of an unknown person. Obviously, by noticing, that the fraud is going to come to light, and very serious consequences would ensue, the 1st respondent himself submitted a complaint before the police station, and the same ended in conviction of himself, and the 2nd respondent. 7. The unfortunate aspect of the matter is, that, in the enthusiasm to show to the public, that speedier justice is being rendered, the Lok Adalat did not even care to verify the genuineness of the claim; and the whole shallowness in the procedure was exposed. The further sad part of the matter is, that the Lok Adalat became virtually helpless, even when the fraud, committed upon it; was brought to its notice. 8. Once it has emerged that the claim presented by respondents 1 and 2 was fraudulent, the award passed in their claim petition, deserves to be set aside. It hardly needs any reiteration, that fraud would vitiate anything, and everything. 9. For the foregoing reasons, the C.R.P, is allowed, and the award passed by the Lok Adalat, in M.V.O.P. No.444 of 1997, dated 27-12-1997 is set aside. The petitioner shall be entitled to withdraw the amount that is in deposit, and to take steps to recover the amount, that has been paid to respondents 1 and 2. 10. There shall be no order as to costs. --X--