Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1845 (BOM)

SONBA S/o MARUTI SHINDE v. SUNIL S/o RANUJI BADHE

2017-09-07

K.K.SONAWANE

body2017
JUDGMENT : This appeal is taken for final hearing on merit with the consent of both parties at the stage of admission. 2. This is an appeal preferred by the appellant-original claimant under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) for enhancement of compensation amount awarded by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short “Tribunal”) in MACP No. 93 of 2010 filed under section 166 of the Act of 1988 vide impugned Judgment and Award dated 13-2-2014. 3. Factual matrix of the matter is that, the appellant-original claimant on 30-9-2009 was proceeding towards Parner S.T. Bus stand on foot. When he reached near the premises of Panchayat Samiti Office located on Parner to Kanhur Pathar road, one motor bike bearing No. MH-17/P-8123 came in excessive speed and gave dash to the appellant. Respondent No. 1 was driving the motor bike in rash and negligent manner at the relevant time and caused accident resulting into serious injuries to the applicant. After alleged motor vehicle accident, appellant was escorted to Hospital in Parner town and lateron shifted to Bhivandi for better medical treatment. He was hospitalized since 30-09-2009 to 09-10-2009. The appellant was eking livelihood by doing work as mason and he used to earn more than Rs. 15,000/- per month but due to permanent physical disability following vehicular accident, there was pecuniary loss to him. He has also incurred huge expenses for medical treatment. Therefore, appellant-original claimant taking recourse of section 166 of the Act of 1988 filed claim petition No. 93 of 2010 for compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs) towards pecuniary loss and medical expenses following injuries caused to him in the accident. 4. The respondents-registered owner and driver of the motor bike appeared in the proceeding and raised objection for the contentions propounded on behalf of appellant-original claimant. According to respondents, alleged accident was occurred due to negligence on the part of appellant-original claimant. He attempted to cross the road hurriedly without paying attention towards vehicle coming from opposite direction. Therefore, the claimant is not entitled to get compensation for the injuries sustained to him. 5. Learned Tribunal appreciated the oral and circumstantial evidence adduced on record and arrived at the conclusion that appellant-original claimant is entitled to get compensation of Rs. He attempted to cross the road hurriedly without paying attention towards vehicle coming from opposite direction. Therefore, the claimant is not entitled to get compensation for the injuries sustained to him. 5. Learned Tribunal appreciated the oral and circumstantial evidence adduced on record and arrived at the conclusion that appellant-original claimant is entitled to get compensation of Rs. 1,59,046/- along with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of application till realization of the amount from the respondents. The learned Tribunal passed the impugned Judgment and Award, which is the subject-matter of the present appeal. 6. It appears that learned Tribunal decided the present claim petition on 13-2-2014, but respondent No. 2 being registered owner of the motorcycle did not deposit any compensation amount as directed by learned Tribunal. Therefore, appellant-original claimant filed Execution Proceeding for realization of decreetal amount of Rs. 2,20,500/- from the respondents. The respondents caused their appearance in the Execution Proceedings. As there was element of settlement of the claim, Execution Proceedings/petition was referred to the Lok Adalat. In the Lok Adalat dispute was settled between the parties amicably. The appellant-original claimant agreed and accepted the sum of Rs. 1,92,500/- towards full and final settlement of the claim of compensation arising out of motor vehicular accident. 7. Thereafter, in the month of February, 2015 appellant-original claimant preferred the present appeal by invoking remedy under section 173 of the Act of 1988 and put in controversy the findings expressed by the learned Tribunal, for determination of the quantum of compensation amount awarded for bodily injuries caused to the appellant-original claimant in motor vehicular accident. It has been alleged that learned Tribunal did not appreciate the oral and circumstantial evidence on record in its proper perspective and awarded very meagre compensation amount, which is unjust and improper in view of the loss sustained to the appellant-original claimant. Therefore, appellant prayed for enhancement of compensation amount in this appeal. 8. Learned counsel for respondents vociferously opposed the contentions put forth on behalf of appellant and submits that the dispute pertains to quantum of compensation amount has already been settled amicably in between the parties. The appellant-original claimant agreed to accept Rs. 1,92,500/- as full and final settlement of the claim for compensation towards his bodily injuries sustained in the accident arising from the use of motor-bike of the respondents. The appellant-original claimant agreed to accept Rs. 1,92,500/- as full and final settlement of the claim for compensation towards his bodily injuries sustained in the accident arising from the use of motor-bike of the respondents. The award of the Lok Adalat for settlement of total quantum of compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,92,500/- was final and absolute. The law does not provide any appeal against the Award passed in the Lok-Adalat. Therefore, the appellant-original claimant has no legal right to avail remedy under section 173 of the Act of 1988 for enhancement of compensation amount by filing the present appeal. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant-original claimant vehemently submits that appeal is filed against the impugned Judgment and Award passed by the learned Tribunal and not against Award passed in the Lok Adalat. The dispute for satisfaction of decree was amicably settled in the Execution Proceedings/petition. There was no compromise in regard to the quantum of monetary liability of the respondents for loss and damage sustained to the appellant-original claimant in the motor vehicular accident. According to learned counsel, the appeal filed on behalf of appellant-original claimant is maintainable and the same is required to be adjudicated on merit for determination of just and appropriate monetary liability of respondents in this case. 10. It is to be noted that the factum of amicable settlement in the Lok Adalat and acceptance of sum of Rs. 1,92,500/- towards full and final settlement of the claim of Rs. 2,20,500/- determined by the learned Tribunal is not put in controversy on behalf of appellant-original claimant. It has been contended that amicable settlement was only to the extent of Execution Proceedings/petition filed in the Court for enforcement of Award passed by the learned Tribunal. The appeal came to be filed against the Award of learned Tribunal to determine just and proper compensation amount. Hence, amicable settlement in the Lok Adalat would not disentitle the appellant to invoke remedy under section 173 of the Act of 1988 for filing present appeal. 11. In order to resolve the impasse, it would be profitable to make reference of relevant provisions relating to the Lok Adalat. Hence, amicable settlement in the Lok Adalat would not disentitle the appellant to invoke remedy under section 173 of the Act of 1988 for filing present appeal. 11. In order to resolve the impasse, it would be profitable to make reference of relevant provisions relating to the Lok Adalat. The Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (herein after referred to as Act of 1987 for brevity) was enacted to constitute Legal Services Authorities to provide free and competent legal service to the weaker sections of the society and to ensure that opportunities for securing justice are not denied to any citizen by reason of economic or other disabilities, and to organize Lok Adalat. Section 2(a) of the Legal Services Authorities Act defines “case” which includes a suit or any proceedings before the Court. Section 2(aaa) contemplates “Court” means a civil, criminal or revenue Court and includes any tribunal or any other authority constituted under any law for the time being in force, to exercise judicial or quasi judicial functions. Section 19 provides for organisation of Lok Adalat by State Authority or District Authority or by the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee or every High Court Legal Services Committee or as the case may be, the “Taluka Legal Services Committee may also organise Lok Adalat at such intervals and places as directed by State Authority. Section 19(5) prescribes as follows : “19. Organisation of Lok Adalats. — (1)..... (2)..... (3)..... (4)..... (5) A Lok Adalat shall have jurisdiction to determine and to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties to a dispute in respect of — (i) any case pending before; or (ii) any matter which is falling within the jurisdiction of, and is not brought before, any Court for which the Lok Adalat is organised.” 12. Section 20 of the Act of 1987 provides that, when the parties agree for referring the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement and if the Court is prima facie satisfied that there are element of such settlement, the Court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat. 13. Section 21 of the Act of 1987 reads as under : “21. Award of Lok Adalat. 13. Section 21 of the Act of 1987 reads as under : “21. Award of Lok Adalat. — (1) Every award of the Lok Adalat shall be deemed to be a decree of a civil Court or as the case may be, an order of any other Court and where a compromise or settlement has been arrived at, by a Lok Adalat in a case referred to it under sub-section (1) of section 20, the Court fee paid in such case shall be refunded in the manner provided under the Court Fees Act, 1870(7 of 1870). (2) Every award made by a Lok Adalat shall be final and binding on all the parties to the dispute, and no appeal shall lie to any Court against the award.” 14. As referred supra the definition of expression “case” in section 2(a) includes a suit or any proceeding before a Court. Therefore, Execution Proceedings pending before the Court comes within the purview of expression “case” as defined under section 2(a) of the Act of 1987. The definition “Court” under section 2(aaa) means, a Civil, Criminal or Revenue Courts and includes any Tribunal or any authority constituted under any Law for the time being in force, to exercise judicial or quasi-judicial jurisdiction. The Motor Accident Tribunal would be the Court under section 2(aaa) of the Act, 1987. In the aftermath, the Execution Petition pending before the learned Tribunal to execute the Award passed by it, can be validly referred to the Lok Adalat for its amicable settlement. Moreover, the compromise effected in the Lok Adalat shall be enforceable being an Award deemed to be as decree of Civil Court or the case may be, an order of any other Court. But, when the decree came to be passed by the learned Tribunal and reference was made to the Lok Adalat in Execution Proceedings, there would not be any Award of Lok Adalat having effect of substitution of original decree (Award) passed by the learned Tribunal in claim petition. 15. When the matter is settled amicably between the parties before the Lok Adalat, after it being referred by Executing Court, the Award passed therein is enforceable not as decree of Civil Court, but as an order passed by the Executing Court. 15. When the matter is settled amicably between the parties before the Lok Adalat, after it being referred by Executing Court, the Award passed therein is enforceable not as decree of Civil Court, but as an order passed by the Executing Court. The Award of Lok Adalat in the form of order of Executing Court would be on the basis of original decree (Award) passed by the learned Tribunal in the claim petition. The Award of Lok Adalat in Execution Proceedings would not get merge automatically in the Award of the learned Tribunal. 16. In the instant case, the learned Tribunal after appreciation of evidence on record partly allowed the claim petition filed under section 166 of the Act of 1988 on behalf of appellant-original claimant. Accordingly, the Award was passed by the learned Tribunal on 13-2-2014 and directed respondent No. 2 (original opponent No. 2) to pay the compensation of Rs. 1,59,046/- along with interest @ 7.5 % p.a. from the date of application till realization of the amount. But, there was no response for depositing the compensation amount from respondent No. 2. Therefore, appellant-original claimant preferred the execution proceeding for realization of decreetal amount from the respondent-original opponent No. 2 by attachment and sale of his property and by arrest and detaining him in civil prison. After receipt of notice, respondent No. 2 caused his appearance in the Execution Proceedings. There was Lok Adalat scheduled to be held on 13-12-2014. The learned Tribunal referred the execution petition filed by appellant-original claimant to the Lok Adalat for settlement of dispute amicably. After negotiation, the issue of recovery of decreetal amount of Rs. 2,20,500/- came to be settled amicably in between appellant-original claimant and respondent (original opponent No. 2). The appellant agreed to accept Rs. 1,92,500/- towards full and final settlement of the claim for compensation arising from motor vehicle accident. The compromise petition was filed on behalf of both sides and it was accepted and accordingly the Award came to be passed in the Execution Proceedings below (Exhibit-1) on 13-12-2014. It appears that, the appellant-original claimant waived rest of the balance amount of Rs. 28,000/- as awarded by the learned Tribunal in the claim petition. 17. The compromise petition was filed on behalf of both sides and it was accepted and accordingly the Award came to be passed in the Execution Proceedings below (Exhibit-1) on 13-12-2014. It appears that, the appellant-original claimant waived rest of the balance amount of Rs. 28,000/- as awarded by the learned Tribunal in the claim petition. 17. In such backdrop, the contiguous issues to ponder over in this appeal are whether the present appeal filed under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, by the appellant-original claimant against impugned Judgment and Award of the learned Claims Tribunal is sustainable within the ambit of law and if yes, whether appellant-original claimant is entitled for any enhancement of compensation for the loss sustained to him from the alleged vehicular accident? 18. Undisputedly, there are two Awards available in this case, one is the Award of the learned Claims Tribunal passed while adjudication of claim petition filed under section 166 of the Act of 1988 and same is in the form of decree of Civil Court, whereas another Award is passed in Lok Adalat after settlement of issue therein amicably in between the parties and it is in the form of order of Executing Court. The provision of sub-section (2) of section 21 of the Act of 1988 does not permit to file appeal in any Court against the Award of Lok Adalat. Therefore, it would be an final and conclusive award. As mentioned above, the Award of Lok Adalat passed in Execution petition would not merge, nor it would have an effect of substitution of earlier Award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal. Both the Awards have its separate legal status and sanctity. The law does not provide appeal against the Award of Lok Adalat whereas the Award passed under section 166 of the Act of 1988 by the learned Claims Tribunal is appealable under section 173 of the Act of 1988. In such circumstances, there is no impediment to arrive at the conclusion that the present appeal filed under section 173 of the Act of 1988 is sustainable and maintainable within the purview of law. 19. Now, another spectrum of the matter pertains to issue of enhancement of compensation, the attending circumstances of the matter as discussed supra reflects that, the appellant is not entitled for any sort of enhancement of compensation in this appeal. 19. Now, another spectrum of the matter pertains to issue of enhancement of compensation, the attending circumstances of the matter as discussed supra reflects that, the appellant is not entitled for any sort of enhancement of compensation in this appeal. He has already agreed to accept sum of Rs. 1,92,500/- towards full and final settlement of claim of compensation including “No Fault Liability” as contemplated under section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The compromise petition (Exhibit-8) to that effect was also filed by the appellant and respondent before the Lok Adalat, which came to be accepted resulting into passing the Award of Executing Court. It is also pertinent to note that the appellant/claimant after negotiation proceeded to waive rest of the balance amount of Rs. 28,000/- awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal towards compensation. The attempt to relinquish the legal right to recover Rs. 28000/- being part of decree of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal itself demonstrate that the claimant/appellant agreed and accepted Rs. 1,92,500/- towards full and final lump sum amount of compensation. He allowed the respondent-owner of vehicle to evade and escape from monetary liability of Rs. 28,000/-, imposed under the Award of learned Claims Tribunal. 20. It is to be seen that the Award of learned Claims Tribunal was for the total compensation of Rs. 2,20,500/-. The appellant-claimant after negotiation settled amicably the quantum of compensation to be recovered from respondent. He agreed and accepted the amount of Rs.1,92,500/- and relinquished the right to recover rest of the balance decreetal amount of Rs.28,000/- from the respondent-owner of vehicle. These circumstances reflect that the settlement of dispute in Lok Adalat was not pertaining to mode and manner in which the decreetal amount determined by the Claims Tribunal to be recovered. But, there was compromise for the full and final quantum of compensation to be recovered from the respondent in this case. Therefore, once he has finalized the quantum of compensation amount to be recovered from respondent-owner of offending vehicle, then he has no locus standi to seek further enhancement of compensation. In such peculiar circumstances, the prayer of appellant-original claimant for enhancement of compensation is not sustainable and considerable one. In case of any enhancement of compensation in this appeal, it would negate the very purpose and object of negotiation taken place in the Lok Adalat for amicable settlement of issue in controversy. In such peculiar circumstances, the prayer of appellant-original claimant for enhancement of compensation is not sustainable and considerable one. In case of any enhancement of compensation in this appeal, it would negate the very purpose and object of negotiation taken place in the Lok Adalat for amicable settlement of issue in controversy. It would also conjure up an image of mischief with the respondent while compromise in the Lok Adalat. Hence, claim of appellant for enhancement of compensation would not be amenable within the ambit of law for consideration in this appeal. Therefore, appeal deserves to be dismissed being devoid of merits. 21. In view of aforesaid discussion, I am not inclined to nod in favour of appellant for appreciation of evidence on record to re-determine pecuniary loss caused to the appellant for enhancement of compensation as prayed. It would be reiterated that quantum of claim for pecuniary loss on account of bodily injuries sustained to the appellant-original claimant arising from motor vehicular accident had already been settled and finalized by negotiation in the Lok Adalat in between the appellant and respondent and it has become absolute and conclusive one. The law does not permit any appeal against it. Therefore, there cannot be any re-determination of quantum of claim amount at the behest of appellant/claimant. Hence, appeal stands dismissed. No order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.