Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1425 (HP)

Praveen Kumar v. Bhupinder Singh

2018-08-01

DHARAM CHAND CHAUDHARY

body2018
JUDGMENT : Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. Award dated 9.9.2017 (Annexure P-1) passed by a Bench of National Lok Adalat in MACP No. 42 of 2017 is under challenge on the grounds, inter alia, that the petitioner herein (respondent No. 1-Insured before learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal below) was not present before the Bench of National Lok Adalat and the impugned award has been passed behind his back and without recording his statement. 2. The record reveal that ever since the service of petitioner-respondent No. 1 in the claim petition the same continued to be listed on different dates for filing reply. The reply, however, was not filed and it is on 25.8.2017 learned Tribunal below was informed that there are chances of amicable settlement of the disputes involved. Consequently, the conciliation was tried on 26.8.2018 and the following order passed by learned Claims Tribunal : “Conciliation tried and the same seems to be successful, as such, matter is ordered to be listed in the National Lok Adalat scheduled to be held on 9.9.2017.” 3. It is apparent from the order ibid that the claim petition was ordered to be fixed before National Lok Adalat for recording compromise with a direction to the parties to remain present in person on the date fixed. The petitioner-respondent No. 1 was also present in person along with learned Counsel representing him when the conciliation tried by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal on 26.8.2017. He, however, failed to attend the National Lok Adalat on the date fixed i.e. 9.9.2017. However, Shri K.K. Chaudhary, Advocate, learned Counsel representing him in his statement recorded separately has stated that the parties have compromised the matter and that the petitioner-respondent No. 1 is ready and willing to pay a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- to Shri Bhupinder Singh, respondent No. 1 herein towards full and final settlement of his claims in the claim petition. The respondent No. 1-claimant Bhupinder Singh was also present in person. In his statement recorded separately he also stated about the amicable settlement having been arrived at between the parties and as a result thereof a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- is the mutually agreed amount payable to him towards full and final settlement in the claim petition. The Bench of National Lok Adalat, as such, proceeded to pass the final award on the basis of amicable settlement so arrived at. 4. 2,50,000/- is the mutually agreed amount payable to him towards full and final settlement in the claim petition. The Bench of National Lok Adalat, as such, proceeded to pass the final award on the basis of amicable settlement so arrived at. 4. As has said hereinabove, petitioner-respondent No. 1 was a party to the amicable settlement arrived at between the parties. Had it been not so he would have appeared before the Bench of National Lok Adalat on 9.9.2017 and apprised the Bench that no amicable settlement was arrived at during the course of conciliation tried in the Court by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal on 26.8.2017. Not only this, but there was a direction to the parties to appear before the Bench of National Lok Adalat. He was present on 26.8.2017 before learned Tribunal below when such direction was passed. He, no doubt, was not present before the Bench of National Lok Adalat, however, duly represented by learned Counsel representing him. The possibility of he having authorised/instructed learned Counsel to make statement on his behalf cannot be ruled out. 5. In such peculiar circumstances, it cannot be believed by any stretch of imagination that the amicable settlement as arrived at in this matter is behind his back and without associating him during the course of conciliation tried. On the other hand, the award passed by the National Lok Adalat is not appealable as is provided under Section 21 of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987. The ratio of the judgment in AIR 2017 Supreme Court 4428, title Bharvagi Construction and Anr. v. Kothakapu Muthyam Reddy and Ors. is not attracted in the given facts and circumstances of this case and rather distinguishable. 6. For all the reasons hereinabove, this petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. 7. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.