Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 371 (HP)

Jiwan Dass v. Shiv Ram Son Of Shri Kahru Ram

2022-07-05

CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA, TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN

body2022
ORDER : Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. The instant petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed for the grant of following relief(s): “(a) That writ of certiorari may kindly be passed thereby quashing and setting aside the order dated 27.3.2021 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Kinnaur, Civil Division at Rampur Bushehr District Shimla (HP) in the Lok Adalat in case No. MACT 68/2017 and directing the Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Kinnaur Civil Division at Rampur Bushehr, District Shimla (HP) to decide the petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act filed by the petitioner on merits after affording proper opportunity of being heard to the parties and the office of learned Tribunal below may be directed to produce the entire record relating to Case No.MACT 68/2017. (b) Awarding costs of the proceedings in favour of the petitioner against the respondents.” 2. The petitioner had filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for grant of compensation before learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short ‘MACT’), Kinnaur. During the course of evidence, the case was referred to the Lok Adalat held on 27.3.2021,which passed the following order: “The statements of the parties recorded separately. This petition has been compromised. The Insurance Company undertook to pay Rs. 90,000/- to the petitioner which is acceptable to him. Further the Insurance Company undertook to deposit this amount within 45 days and in view of the statements of parties, the petition stands compromised and Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount within 45 days and in the event of failure to deposit the amount, the petitioner shall be entitled to recover the amount with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of order till realization. Statements of learned counsel for Insurance Company and petitioner shall form part and parcel of this award. Memo of costs be prepared. File after due completion be consigned to the record room.” 3. Now the claim of the petitioner is that he was under the belief that the award whereby a meager amount of Rs. 90,000/- had been granted as compensation in his favour was only an interim award, which was to be followed by a final Award. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material placed on record. 5. 90,000/- had been granted as compensation in his favour was only an interim award, which was to be followed by a final Award. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material placed on record. 5. The records reveal that the statement of the petitioner was recorded on 27.3.2021 and was to the following effect: “Stated that I have compromised with respondents. Insurance Company is ready to pay Rs. 90,000/-to me, for which I am agreed. Insurance Company has promised to pay the above said amount within 45 days, for which I am agreed. As per statement, order be passed.” 6. Here it is relevant to make note of the statement of the counsel for Insurance Company that was recorded separately and reads as under: “Stated that I have been authorized by the company official to compromise the matter with the petitioner. I hereby proposed to pay Rs. 90,000/-(ninety thousand only) being full and final payment to the petitioner and the same is acceptable to him. The company will deposit the aforesaid amount within 45 days. Therefore, the petition may kindly be decided in terms of the aforesaid compromise.” 7. There is nothing on record to even remotely suggest that the petitioner,who is otherwise an educated and has retired from government service, would have thought, muchless considered the award passed by Lok Adalat to be only interim in nature, especially when he has understood the offer made by the Insurance Company. Rather his statement is to the contrary. 8. There is nothing on record to even remotely suggest that the petitioner,who is otherwise an educated and has retired from government service, would have thought, muchless considered the award passed by Lok Adalat to be only interim in nature, especially when he has understood the offer made by the Insurance Company. Rather his statement is to the contrary. 8. At this stage, it needs to be noticed that no doubt the award passed by the Lok Adalat can be assailed by filing a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India, but on a very limited ground as held by a three judges Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in “State of Punjab and another versus Jalour Singh and others”, (2008) 2 Supreme Court Cases 660, when in para-12 of the judgment it has been held as under: “It is true that where an award is made by the Lok Adalat in terms of a settlement arrived at between the parties (which is duly signed by parties and annexed to the award of the Lok Adalat), it becomes final and binding on the parties to the settlement and becomes executable as if it is a decree of a civil court, and no appeal lies against it to any court. If any party wants to challenge such an award based on settlement, it can be done only by filing a petition under Article 226 and/or Article 227 of the Constitution, that too on a very limited grounds. But where no compromise or settlement is signed by the parties and the order of the Lok Adalat does not refer to any settlement, but directs the respondent to either make payment if it agrees to the order, or approach the High Court for disposal of appeal on merits, if it does not agree, is not an award of the Lok Adalat. The question of challenging such an order in a petition under Article 227 does not arise. As already noticed, in such a situation, the High Court ought to have heard and disposed of the appeal on merits.” 9. The judgment(supra), in turn, has been relied upon by a two judges Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Bhargavi Construction and another versus Kothakapu Muthyam Reddy and others”, (2018) 13 Supreme Court Cases 480. 10. As already noticed, in such a situation, the High Court ought to have heard and disposed of the appeal on merits.” 9. The judgment(supra), in turn, has been relied upon by a two judges Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Bhargavi Construction and another versus Kothakapu Muthyam Reddy and others”, (2018) 13 Supreme Court Cases 480. 10. The petitioner has not been able to carve out a case and show that the award is palpably wrong or illegal and not based on the compromise as agreed and recorded. It is not even the case of the petitioner that the offer made by the Insurance Company was not the one as has been recorded in the order alongwith the statement of the counsel for the Insurance Company. Therefore, having accepted the offer, the petitioner cannot turn around and question the award, that too only on the ground of misconception of it being interim in nature as against the final order. 11. As observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the scope of this petition is extremely limited and the instant case does not fall within such exceptions. 12. Consequently, we find no merit in the petition and the same is accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. The pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of.