Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 73 (GAU)

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Santosh Verma

2016-02-02

HRISHIKESH ROY

body2016
JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. S. Dutta, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. Deka, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 (claimant). However none appears for the respondent No.2, who was the owner of the Bus, involved in the accident. 2. On 26.4.2006, the claimant Santosh Verma was proceeding in a Maruti 800 Car bearing registration No.AR-12-1275 from Tinsukia to Hapjan and at about 7 P.M., the Bus bearing registration No. AS-23-A-6279 coming from the opposite direction, collided with the Car injuring the two persons, who were travelling in the car. The victim Santosh Verma was treated first at the City Hospital, Tinsukia and thereafter he had to be shifted to the Assam Medical College (AMC) Hospital, Dibrugarh, where he was treated as an indoor patient until 30.4.2006. 3. Following his release from the AMC Hospital, the injured victim filed the application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 and accordingly the MAC Case No.91/2006 was registered. The owner of the Bus and the driver were arrayed as the respondent No. 1 & 2 in the MAC Case No.91/2006 and the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. under whom the Bus was insured was arrayed as the respondent No.5. The Maruti Car involved in the accident was insured with the New India Assurance Company Ltd. and this insurer was arrayed as respondent No.6, before the learned MAC Tribunal at Tinsukia. 4. The MAC Case No.91/2006 was disposed of on 28.3.2008 (Annexure-IV) through purported compromise between the claimant and one of the Insurance Company. The Awarded amount was paid by the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. but since the 6th respondent i.e. the New India Assurance Company Ltd. failed to pay their share of the awarded amount, the claimant raised grievance before the MAC Tribunal, Tinsukia. 5. As the 2nd Insurance Company was not a party to the consent order dated 28.3.2008, the learned Tribunal passed the impugned order on 12.9.2008 (Annexure-V) whereby the settlement dated 28.3.2008 was set aside and refund of Rs.25,000/- to the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. was ordered by the Court. 6. The above decision is challenged by the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. by projecting that the Award recorded in the Lok Adalat attained finality under Section 21(2) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1987 Act”) and therefore the same couldn’t have been re-opened subsequently. 7. 6. The above decision is challenged by the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. by projecting that the Award recorded in the Lok Adalat attained finality under Section 21(2) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1987 Act”) and therefore the same couldn’t have been re-opened subsequently. 7. Section 20 of the 1987 Act provides that cognizance of cases by the Lok Adalat can be taken on agreement of the parties and the Lok Adalat can proceed to dispose of the matter upon compromise/settlement, amongst the parties. Therefore for the Award of the Lok Adalat to be final under the 1987 Act, the agreement of all parties is a pre-requisite and without such consent, the settlement order recorded by Lok Adalat doesn’t take the colour of a valid decision under Section 20 or 21 of the 1987 Act. Thus the finality to such Award doesn’t get attached in law, under Sub-Section (2) of Section 21 of the 1987 Act. 8. When we peruse the compromise application (Annexure-III) filed before the Lok Adalat, it is apparent that the same was not signed by the New India Assurance Company Ltd., although they were the respondent No.6 in the M.A.C. Case No.91/2006. Therefore the compromise referred to in the Annexure-III application is only between the claimant and the first insurance company i.e. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and the other parties including the 2nd insurance company i.e. New India Assurance Company Ltd. were not involved with the so called arrangement. 9. In the above circumstances, the decision rendered in the M.A.C. Case No.91/2006 on the basis of the compromise application can’t be said to be an valid Award under the 1987 Act, in as much as, the compromise application was signed by only two parties without involvement of the others in the case. 10. This Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Member Secretary, Assam SLSA reported in 2007(4) GLT 737 had held that settlement during the Lok Adalat proceeding should not be forced upon an unwilling party who are not willing to compromise the matter. In this case, the New India Assurance Company Ltd. which was arrayed as the 6th respondent in the M.A.C. Case No.91/2006, had never agreed for the compromise and therefore to bind them under the compromise order dated 28.3.2008 (Annexure-IV) can’t be legally accepted. 11. In this case, the New India Assurance Company Ltd. which was arrayed as the 6th respondent in the M.A.C. Case No.91/2006, had never agreed for the compromise and therefore to bind them under the compromise order dated 28.3.2008 (Annexure-IV) can’t be legally accepted. 11. When the application filed by the claimant for compromising the matter was not signed by the New Indian Assurance Company Ltd., the said respondent should not have been burdened with any amount under the order dated 28.3.2008 (Annexure-IV). In such circumstances, the subsequent direction given on 12.9.2008 (Annexure-V) by the Tribunal Judge to set aside the one sided settlement order of 28.3.2008 (Annexure-IV), is found to be in order. 12. According to the understanding of this Court, the compromise recorded by the Lok Adalat on 28.3.2008 is not a valid decision under the 1987 Act and therefore the M.A.C. Case No.91/2006 will have to be decided afresh on merit. 13. In view of above, I hold that there is no substance to the challenge made against the order dated 12.9.2008 (Annexure-V) of the MAC Tribunal, Tinsukia and accordingly this writ petition is dismissed. Consequently, the M.A.C. Case No.91/2006 is ordered to be re-decided on merit, without being burdened by the settlement order dated 28.3.2008. It is ordered accordingly. 14. With the above order, the case is disposed of. No cost.