Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 920 (MP)

Pramila Devi v. Mahesh Kumar Sharma

2013-08-06

M.K.MUDGAL, S.K.GANGELE

body2013
JUDGMENT : Shri S. S. Gautam, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri N.S.Tomar, Advocate for the respondent No.3- Insurance Company. Heard. 2. The petitioners have filed this petition against the order dated 29-04-2011 (Annexure P-1) passed by Fifth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gwalior. By the aforesaid order, the application submitted by the petitioners for setting aside the order of settlement dated 11-12-2010 (Annexure P-2) passed by Lok Adalat, has been rejected. 3. The petitioners made a complaint before the Claims Tribunal that their Advocate entered into an agreement before the Lok Adalat in regard to settlement of their claim filed under Motor Vehicles Act, however, the petitioners had not authorized their Advocate to enter into an agreement which is against their interest. Their application has been rejected by the Claims Tribunal. 4. It is an admitted fact that the petitioners did not sign the settlement before the Lok Adalat and it was signed by the Advocate who had Vaklatnama on behalf of the petitioners. 5. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and Another vs. Jalour Singh and Others, 2009(1) T.A.C. 819 (S.C.), has held that the Lok Adalat cannot adjudicate upon and decide any matter without the consent of parties. The relevant findings are as under:- “8. It is evident from the said provisions that Lok Adalats have no adjudicatory or judicial functions. Their functions relate purely to conciliation. A Lok Adalat determines a reference on the basis of a compromise or settlement between the parties as its instance and puts its seal of confirmation by making an award in terms of the compromise or settlement. When the Lok Adalat is not able to arrive at a settlement or compromise, no award is made and the case record is returned to the Court from which the reference was received, for disposal in accordance with law. No Lok Adalat has the power to 'hear' parties to adjudicate cases as a Court does. It discusses the subject-matter with the parties and persuades them to arrive at a just settlement. In their conciliatory role, the Lok Adalats are guided by principles of justice, equity, fair play. No Lok Adalat has the power to 'hear' parties to adjudicate cases as a Court does. It discusses the subject-matter with the parties and persuades them to arrive at a just settlement. In their conciliatory role, the Lok Adalats are guided by principles of justice, equity, fair play. When the L.S.A. Act refers to 'determination' by the Lok Adalat and 'award' by the Lok Adalat, the said Act does not contemplate nor require an adjudicatory judicial determination, but a non-adjudicatory determination based on a compromise or settlement, arrived at by the parties, with guidance and assistance from the Lok Adalat. The 'award' of the Lok Adalat does not mean any independent verdict or opinion arrived at by any decision making process. The making of the award is merely an administrative act of incorporating the terms of settlement or compromise agreed by parties in the presence of the Lok Adalat, in the form of an executable order under the signature and seal of the Lok Adalat.” 6. Hon'ble the Supreme Court further in the case of Bar Council of India vs. Union of India, 2012(4) MPLJ (S.C.) 503 = (2012) 8 SCC 243 has held that against a compromise decree or order, writ petition could be maintainable under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. The relevant findings are as under:- “38. There is no inherent right of appeal. Appeal is always a creature of statute and if no appeal is provided to an aggrieved party in a particular statute, that by itself may not render that statute unconstitutional. Section 22-E(1)makes every award of the Permanent Lok Adalat under the 1987 Act either on merit or in terms of a settlement final and binding on all the parties thereto and on persons claiming under them. No appeal is provided from the award passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat but that in our opinion does not render the impugned provisions unconstitutional. In the first place, having regard to the nature of dispute up to a specific pecuniary limit relating to public utility service and resolution of such dispute by the procedure provided in Sections 22-C(1) to 22-C(8) , it is important that such dispute is brought to an end at the earliest and is not prolonged unnecessarily. In the first place, having regard to the nature of dispute up to a specific pecuniary limit relating to public utility service and resolution of such dispute by the procedure provided in Sections 22-C(1) to 22-C(8) , it is important that such dispute is brought to an end at the earliest and is not prolonged unnecessarily. Secondly, and more importantly, if at all a party to the dispute has a grievance against the award of Permanent Lok Adalat it can always approach the High Court under its supervisory and extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. There is no merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in that situation the burden of litigation would be brought back on the High Courts after the award is passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat on merits.” 7. Hence, from the principle of law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the above judgments, it is clear that if an award has been passed in pursuance to the agreement entered into before the Lok Adalat and if the parties contend that they have not instructed their Advocate, then the same could be set aside in a proceeding under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3- Insurance Company has relied on the judgment delivered by Division Bench of this Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Amritbai and Others, 2011 ACJ 412 . In the aforesaid judgment, it has been held by this Court that an award of Lok Adalat is a decree, hence, it could not be challenged in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, Hon'ble the Supreme Court has held that against a compromise decree or order, writ petition could be maintainable under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India as mentioned in the order. Hence, contention of the learned counsel for Insurance Company could not be accepted. 9. In the present case, the petitioners have made categorical statement that they have not instructed their Advocate to enter into a compromise. In this view of the matter, the petition filed by the petitioners is allowed. Hence, contention of the learned counsel for Insurance Company could not be accepted. 9. In the present case, the petitioners have made categorical statement that they have not instructed their Advocate to enter into a compromise. In this view of the matter, the petition filed by the petitioners is allowed. The impugned order dated 29-04-2011 (Annexure P-1) passed by Fifth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gwalior and the order of settlement dated 11-12-2010 (Annexure P-2) passed by Lok Adalat, are hereby quashed. The matter is remanded back to the Claims Tribunal to decide the claim case on merits. 10. This writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. Certified copy as per rules.