ORDER Dt.05.12.07 — The petitioner, United India Insurance Company, which was opposite party No.2 in M.J.C. No.111 of 1991, in the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kalahandi, Bhawanipatna, has filed this writ petition with a prayer to quash order dated 28.07.1996 (Annexure-5) as well as order dated 04.02.1997 (Annex¬ure-8) passed by the learned M.A.C.T., Kalahandi-Nuapada at Bhawanipatna in M.J.C. No.97 of 1996 refusing to set aside the compromise dated 28.07.1996. Heard Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the appellant. As it appears, present opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 had filed MJC No.111 of 1991 before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kalahandi claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for the death of their son late Jayanti Arjun Prem inter alia alleging that the deceased sustained injuries while coming as an occupant in the Jeep bearing No.ADJ 8400, due to rash and negli¬gent driving of the driver of the said Jeep on 30.01.1991 at about 3 A.M. near village Barchi Colony in the district of Kala¬handi and died. On the basis of the prayer made by the claimants/petitioners and the Insurance Company the matter was taken up in Lok Adalat on 27.07.1996 and compromised between the parties for a sum of Rs.75,000/- as compensation, payable by the Insurance Company within two months of passing the award, failing which interest will run @ 12% per annum from the date of application till pay¬ment (Annexure-3) and accordingly and award was passed on 28.07.1996 (Annexure-5) directing the Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs.75,000/- to the claimants within a period of two months, failing which the interest shall be payable at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of application i.e., 09.12.1991 till realization. It is further ordered that out of the above amount a sum of Rs.50,000/- shall be kept in fixed deposit in any nationalized Bank for a period of five years in the name of both the petitioners jointly, monthly interest being payable to them. The balance amount of Rs.25,000/- with interest if any be paid to the petitioners. The Bank shall not allow any loan to be raised on this deposit treating the same as security nor it shall allow any premature payment of the same. The balance amount of Rs.25,000/- with interest if any be paid to the petitioners. The Bank shall not allow any loan to be raised on this deposit treating the same as security nor it shall allow any premature payment of the same. Against the said award/order dated 28.07.1996, the petition¬er filed petition under Section 151 C.P.C. praying to set aside the award passed by the Tribunal on the basis of compromise (M.J.C. No.97 of 1996). The Tribunal after considering the mate¬rials on record vide order dated 04.02.1997 disposed of the said application with the observation that since the case was amicably settled and compromised between the applicants and the Insurance Company and later on order was passed in the matter as per the terms and condition of the compromise petition filed by both parties, the present petition filed by the Insurance Company has got no legal entity. The Tribunal also held that as per Section 16(1) of the Legal Services Authorities (Amendment) Act, 1994, once a case decided, settled or amicably compromised in the Lok Adalat and order was passed accordingly, the said order cannot be revised or appealed against and it deems to be a decree of the Civil and accordingly rejected the petition filed by the Insur¬ance Company to set aside the order dated 28.07.1996 passed in Lok Adalat. Hence this writ petition has been filed against the above orders of the Tribunal. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the settlement arrived at in the Lok Adalat on 27.07.1996 between the petitioners and opposite party Nos.1 and 2 is bad inasmuch as the actual fact that the deceased was involved in a criminal case was suppressed. The deceased was an accused in a house breaking case under Sections 457, 380 and 34 IPC vide Jaipatna P.S. Case No.12/91. He further submits that the Tribunal has not considered the fact that the policy of insurance and the provisions of the M.V. Act are designed to cover the liability of the driver/owner of the vehicle. Such criminal activities of the deceased and use of the vehicle in furtherance of such act violates the terms and conditions of the policy. The case record clearly indicates that the claim application was filed in the year 1991. Such criminal activities of the deceased and use of the vehicle in furtherance of such act violates the terms and conditions of the policy. The case record clearly indicates that the claim application was filed in the year 1991. The matter, was compromised between the parties on 27.07.1996 and accordingly an award was passed by the learned Tribunal on 28.07.1996 in terms of such compromise in the Lok Adalat. Even though in the meantime more than 16 years have passed from the date of filing of the claim application and more than 11 years have passed from the date of award, the poor claimants have not received any compensation in spite of the award as well as order dated 04.02.1997 passed by the learned Tribunal in M.J.C. No.97 of 1996. It is an admitted fact that the deceased died while coming as an occupant in the Jeep bearing Registration No.ADJ 8400, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Jeep on 30.01.1991 at about 3 A.M. It is not the case of the petition¬er/Insurance Company, in this case, that there was no valid/effective policy in respect of the offending vehicle which caused the accident and that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid/effective driving license to drive the vehicle/Jeep on the date/time the accident was caused. The purpose of Lok Adalat, no doubt is to settle the claim and dispute between the parties amicably and as expeditiously as possible. Once a case is decided, settled or amicably compromised in Lok Adalat and an order passed accordingly on the basis of such compromise, the said order cannot be modified, revised or appealed against and it has to be deemed to be a decree of the Civil Court. As such, the Insurance Company, who was a party to the compromise, shall have to honour the award passed by the learned Tribunal in the Lok Adalat. As such, the Insurance Company is liable/bound to pay the amount of compensation of Rs.75,000/- along with interest @ 12% per annum in terms of the compromise, since the settled amount has not been paid within two months from the date of compromise/award. As such, the Insurance Company is liable/bound to pay the amount of compensation of Rs.75,000/- along with interest @ 12% per annum in terms of the compromise, since the settled amount has not been paid within two months from the date of compromise/award. So far as the plea, as has been taken by the petitioner/Insurance Company is concerned that it is not liable to pay the amount of compensation since the owner of the vehicle has violated the terms and conditions of the policy by allowing the deceased to use the Jeep for carrying stolen property along with the driver of the vehicle, who is an accused person in Jaipatna P.S. Case No.12 of 1991, is concerned after the entire amount of compensation is deposited along with up-to-date accrued interest before the Tribunal as directed above, the petitioner/Insurance Company shall have the right to proceed against the owner of the offending vehicle for realization/recov¬ery of the entire amount paid/deposited by it in accordance with law for violation of the terms and conditions of the policy by allowing the Jeep to be used in dacoity/carrying stolen articles on the date and time the accident was caused as well as shall have the liberty to attach the vehicle, if the owner/insured does not participate in that proceeding and comply with the order passed by the Court/Tribunal in the proceeding for recovery. Accordingly the petitioner/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire awarded amount of Rs.75,000/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. 09.12.1991 till the date of actual deposit before the Tribunal, within six months and immediately after such deposit, the amount of compensation shall be disbursed in favour of the claimants as has been determined by the Tribunal, as per the terms of the compromise. So far as the interest part is concerned, out of the total amount, 75% of the interest amount shall be invested in fixed deposit for a term of five years and balance amount shall be released in favour of the respective claimants proportionately as would be determined by the Tribunal. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and after going through the contents of the writ petition. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and after going through the contents of the writ petition. I do not find any illegality, irregularity or manifest error of law in the impugned order, which would call for any interference of this Court and as such, I am not inclined to entertain the writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. It is made clear that if so advised, after the amount is deposited in the Tribunal, the petitioner is at liberty to initi¬ate appropriate proceeding against the owner of the vehicle for violation of the terms and conditions of the policy as indicated above and if any proceeding for recovery is initiated by the Insurance Company, the same shall be considered on the basis of the available materials and evidence adduced by the respective parties in that proceeding. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application. Petition dismissed.