NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD Vs. RAMESH CHOWRASIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed challenging the order dtd. 11/2/2022 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Impugned Order') passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Shahdara, Karkardooma, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') in Miscellaneous DJ 513/2021, titled Withdrawal of Consent Ramesh v. Jahir Ahmad.

(2.) By the Impugned Order, the learned Tribunal has held that the compromise/settlement dtd. 8/9/2021 (hereinafter referred to as 'settlement'), which was entered into between the petitioner herein and the respondent nos.1 and 2, that is the father and mother of the deceased respectively, who are the claimants before the learned Tribunal, was entered into by the respondent no.1 without fully and thoroughly understanding the contents and consequences thereof. The learned Tribunal has, therefore, set aside the settlement dtd. 8/9/2021 passed by the Pre-Lok Adalat and has further directed that the amount deposited by the petitioner herein with the learned Tribunal pursuant to the settlement dtd. 8/9/2021 be returned along with the interest accrued thereon to the petitioner herein. Submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Tribunal has erred in its finding that the settlement dtd. 8/9/2021 was signed by the respondent no.1 without fully and thoroughly understanding the contents and consequences thereof. She submits that the respondent no.1 was duly represented by a counsel before the Pre-Lok Adalat on 8/9/2021. He not only was explained the terms of the settlement, but having understood them fully and accepting them, the respondent no.1 gave a statement before the Pre-Lok Adalat giving his consent to the terms of the settlement, based whereof, the Pre-Lok Adalat passed the Award dtd. 8/9/2021 recording that the disputes between the parties stood settled, and placed the same before the Lok Adalat. The Lok Adalat, in turn, passed the Award dtd. 11/9/2021 on the basis of the settlement. She submits that it is only later, that the respondent no.1 took a plea that as he was being represented by a new counsel, due to which he was not explained the terms of the settlement and the consequences thereof in a correct manner, under a misconception, he had signed the statement which was recorded by the Pre-Lok Adalat. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Member of the Pre-Lok Adalat is the same who passed the Award on 11/9/2021 before the Lok Adalat as also the Impugned Order. The Member knew that the respondent no.1 had been fully explained the terms of the settlement and had acknowledged the same in his statement by signing the same.