UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED BANGALORE Vs. PATRAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) an aspect of crucial importance has been projected in the course of this appeal. The proceeding was one under the Workmen's Compensation Act where the death had occurred and the widow of the deceased who was the driver of a vehicle, had applied for compensation. In the course of the proceeding, the matter was referred to the lok adalath for a speedy adjudication and the lok adalath after hearing the parties recorded that the case had been compromised for a sum of Rs. 59,735/-. Subsequently, when the matter came up before the authority a submission appears to have been made on behalf of the claimant that the figure is not acceptable and that consequently the matter should be heard on merits. The authority recorded some evidence which consisted of the statement of the wife of the deceased who disposed to the fact that he was being paid a salary of Rs. 900/- per month and on the basis of this figure, the authority adjudicated the matter and awarded a sum of Rs. 78,0887-. It is this award that is the subject-matter of challenge in the present appeal. As per the normal requirement, the insurance company had deposited the entire claim amount before the authority and the claimant has withdrawn the same.

(2.) the principal submission canvassed by the appellant's learned Advocate centres around an aspect of procedural propriety. The argument also canvasses a proposition that where a matter has been referred to an alternate forum for purposes of adjudication and that forum has indicated its verdict that thereafter it shall not be open to the claimant to resile from the decision to abide by that verdict and to ask for a normal adjudication on merits. The sole issue is, as to whether a litigant in these circumstances can be precluded from asking the court or the tribunal to go on with the case on the ground that the figure suggested by the lok adalath must be accepted.

(3.) the system of having resort to alternate disputes redressal machinery (hereinafter referred to as a.d.r.) has evolved in the course of the last few decades and the most common form of such alternate forums is by having resort to arbitration. In europe and north america where the a.d.r. system is very much prevalent, it is an inflexible principle of procedure that if the parties voluntarily agree to submit themselves to such an a.d.r. machinery, that it is incumbent upon them to abide by its decision. This again is the underlying principle even under the Provisions of the Arbitration Act whereunder, it is implicit that when the dispute is referred for arbitration that the parties do so being aware of the fact that the remedy is a speedy one, the fact that a detailed investigation procedure will not be done, aware that they will have to agree to abide by the verdict because they have full faith in the adjudicating authority and the manner in which the dispute will be resolved. It is only in exceptional circumstances therefore that the court will permit a party to challenge an arbitration aw,ard. On an analogy, the - same principle would hold good once a reference has been made to a lok adalath and it will therefore be necessary for the party who desires to resile from the decision that has been obtained from that forum, to demonstrate that the decision is manifestly bad or perverse or so inherently wrong that it stares one on the face and therefore requires not to be accepted. It is in these circumstances that one will have to uphold a high degree of acceptability to the decisions of these a.d.rs.