Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1606 (RAJ)

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ramkori

2015-09-01

BELA M.TRIVEDI

body2015
JUDGMENT 1. - The present petition has been filed by the petitioner, challenging the order dated 31/1/2003 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sikar (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in Claim Petition No.147 of 2000, whereby the Tribunal has set aside the award made in the Lok Adalat on 20/11/2002. 2. In the instant case, it appears that the respondents-claimants had filed the claim petition before the Tribunal claiming compensation against the petitioner-Insurance Company for the death of Shri Chhotu Ram, husband of the respondent No.1, and father of the respondent Nos. 3 and 4. It appears that the petitioner had filed the reply to the claim petition denying the liability of the petitioner Insurance Company. Thereafter it appears that the matter was compromised between the parties in the Lok Adalat on 20/11/2002, and accordingly the petitioner-Insurance Company was directed to pay Rs. 2,10,000/- to the respondents after deducting the amount of Rs. 50,000/- already paid by way of interim award. The said award appears to have been signed by the members of the Lok Adalat, the learned counsels for the parties, and also the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal. The said award was sought to be set aside by the respondents by submitting an application to the Tribunal on 27/1/2003 on the ground that the amount awarded in the Lok Adalat was inadequate. The Tribunal vide the impugned order dated 31/3/2003 set aside the said award and directed the parties to proceed further with the claim petition on merits. Being aggrieved by the same order, the present petition has been filed. 3. It is sought to be submitted by the learned counsel Mr. Inderjeet Singh for the petitioner that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction or authority to set aside the award made in the Lok Adalat more particularly when there was no allegation of fraud or illegality having been committed during the course of proceedings in the said Lok Adalat. He also submitted that the Tribunal without assigning any reason in the impugned order set aside the award by a stroke of pen. However, the learned counsel Mr. Rakesh Bhargava for the respondents submits that the counsel Shri Prakash Bairwa, who was earlier engaged by the respondents, was already replaced by another counsel Vidyadhar Sunda, and the said counsel Shri Prakash Bairwa had no authority to make compromise on behalf of the respondents in the Lok Adalat. However, the learned counsel Mr. Rakesh Bhargava for the respondents submits that the counsel Shri Prakash Bairwa, who was earlier engaged by the respondents, was already replaced by another counsel Vidyadhar Sunda, and the said counsel Shri Prakash Bairwa had no authority to make compromise on behalf of the respondents in the Lok Adalat. He also submitted that the amount awarded in the Lok Adalat being very less as compared to the claim made by the respondents, the same was liable to be set aside and has rightly been set aside by the Tribunal. Mr. Bhargava has relied upon decisions of Apex Court in case of State of Punjab & Anr v. Jalour Singh and Others, 2008 ACJ 2874 & Bomay High Court in case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shabbir M. Attarwala & Ors, 2007 ACJ 2860 . 4. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties, and to the documents on record, it appears that the award dated 20/11/2002 made by the Lok Adalat and signed by the Members of Lok Adalat, Presiding Officer of the Tribunal and the learned counsels for the parties has been sought to be set aside by the Tribunal vide the impugned order dated 31/1/2003 without assigning any reasons whatsoever. Apart from the fact that the award made in the Lok Adalat is deemed to be a decree of a Civil Court and that the compromise or settlement arrived at by the Lok Adalat is final and binding to all the parties to the disputes, no appeal lies to any Court against such order, in view of Section 21 of the Local Services Authority Act, 1987. Though it has been sought to be submitted by the learned counsel Mr. Rakesh Bhargava for the respondents that the Advocate who had made compromise on behalf of the respondents was already relieved by the respondents and therefore had no authority to make compromise on behalf of the respondents, no such averments were made by the respondents in the application filed before the Tribunal, nor any action has been taken against the said Advocate. Such contention is taken for the first time in the reply in the present petition, which is difficult to accept. If such were the situation, the respondents would have certainly mentioned in the application before the Tribunal for setting aside the award. Such contention is taken for the first time in the reply in the present petition, which is difficult to accept. If such were the situation, the respondents would have certainly mentioned in the application before the Tribunal for setting aside the award. As stated in the reply, the respondents had filed the application before the Tribunal for setting aside the said award after having taken legal advice from their another Advocate Shri Vidyadhar Sunda, however no such allegation of fraud or misrepresentation was made in the said application before the Tribunal. Under the circumstances, the contentions raised by the respondents in the reply appear to be the afterthoughts and not the facts. Even otherwise as stated herein above, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to set aside the award made by the Lok Adalat. The impugned order is also not supported by any reasons as to why the award was liable to be set aside. The decision of Supreme Court in case of State of Punjab v. Jalour Singh (supra) has no application to the facts of the case. In the said case, the Lok Adalat had passed the award not on the compromise, consent or settlement between the parties but had adjudicated upon the matter in issue. Such is not the case here. In the application before the Tribunal, the only ground stated for setting aside the award was that the amount awarded was inadequate. The Tribunal also without assigning any reason set aside the same, without any authority of law. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. 5. The petition is allowed accordingly. It is submitted by the learned counsel Mr. Inderjeet Singh for the petitioner that the petitioner has already deposited the amount before the Tribunal pursuant to the said award made in the Lok Adalat. Hence the respondents shall be at liberty to withdraw the same. By this order, the stay application and other pending application, if any also stand disposed of.Petition allowed. *******