JUDGMENT : 1. Though this appeal is at the stage of admission, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, it is heard and taken up for final disposal. 2. This appeal is preferred by the insurance company assailing the judgment and award dated 22.07.2008 passed in MVC No.2658/2004 by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-III and Addl. MACT, Belgaum (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’ for short). 3. At this stage, it may be stated that the insurance company has assailed the judgment and award on the question of liability especially on the reason that the claimant has already received compensation in OP (MV) No.461/2004 by the MACT, Thodupuzha, Kerala State. 4. The first and foremost contention of the learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company is that the claimant has already received a compensation in OP (MV) NO.461/2004 in pursuance of the settlement done before the Lok Adalat and the insurance company has deposited the compensation. Despite receiving the compensation amount, the respondent-claimant had filed another claim petition before the MACT, Belgaum which is numbered as MVC No.2658/2004 and the Tribunal was pleased to direct the insurance company to pay compensation of Rs.3,81,000/-. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the insurance company filed miscellaneous petition for review of the judgment and award. On hearing both sides, the said miscellaneous petition was dismissed by the MACT, Belgaum. 5. Being aggrieved by the order passed in Miscellaneous Review Petition No.10/2010 and the judgment and award passed in MVC No.2658/2004, the insurance company has preferred this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company strenuously contended that the claimant having received the compensation earlier in OP(MV) No.461/2004 in pursuance of the settlement of dispute before the Lok Adalat, Thodupuzha, Kerala State, has filed another claim petition before the MACT, Belgaum with deliberate intention to make illegal gain. Therefore, the insurance company had filed miscellaneous petition for review of the judgment and award. Despite producing relevant records namely award passed before the Lok Adalat and cheque issued by the insurance company and letter written by the insurance company to the concerned authorities, the learned MACT, Belgaum rejected the miscellaneous petition filed by the insurance company which was not at all proper and justified. 7. Despite producing relevant records namely award passed before the Lok Adalat and cheque issued by the insurance company and letter written by the insurance company to the concerned authorities, the learned MACT, Belgaum rejected the miscellaneous petition filed by the insurance company which was not at all proper and justified. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent-claimant has fairly conceded that the documents produced in miscellaneous petition goes to show that the claimant had received compensation amount in OP (MV) No.461/2004 in pursuance of the settlement done before the Lok Adalath. Thus, respondent-claimant is not entitled to make claim for the second claim. 8. Having regard to the submission of learned counsel for both sides and on perusal of the documentary evidence placed on record in miscellaneous review petition No.10/2010, it is seen that the claim petition namely OP(MV) No.461/2004 filed before the MACT, Thodupuzha, Kerala State, was settled before the Lok Adalat. In pursuance of the said settlement, cheque was issued by the insurance company. The letter dated 21.07.2008 written by the insurance company confirms the same. The award dated 27.07.2004 discloses that the claim was settled before the Lok Adalath for total compensation of Rs.3,21,000/-as per settlement memo filed before the MACT, Thodupuzha. However, the learned MACT, Belgaum has rejected the miscellaneous petition No.10/2010 without considering the relevant documentary evidence. Thus, the finding given by the Tribunal in MVC No.2658/2004 and also dismissal of the miscellaneous review petition No.10/2010 cannot be sustained in law. The second claim of the respondent-claimant is not tenable. 9. For the foregoing discussions, this Court is of the view that there are valid grounds to set-aside the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal in MVC No.2658/2004. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) Appeal filed by the insurance company is allowed. (ii) The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal in MVC No.2658/2004 is set-aside. (iii) The amount in deposit before this Court shall be refunded to the appellant-insurance company forthwith. (iv) No order as to costs.