SACHIN JAGANNATHRUIKME Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Appeal was heard by one of us (A. B. Naik, J)on 22. 4. 2002, having noticed that the appeal raises important questions relating to power and jurisdiction of the Court Tribunal to review the award passed in the Lok Adalat, has directed the Registry to place the papers of the appeal before the Hon'ble the learned Chief Justice as provided under Chapter 1 Rule 7 of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules. Accordingly, the Hon'ble Acting learned Chief Justice was pleased to direct the Registry for placing the appeal before the Division Bench. Accordingly, the appeal was listed for motion hearing on 25. 11. 2002 and the same came to be admitted and the Divisional Bench directed that the appeal be heard peremptorily on 1. 12. 2002. However, the appeal could not be heard on that day and accordingly, the same was listed before us for final hearing.

(2.) IN order to appreciate the point involved in the appeal following facts are required to be stated: the appellant met with an accident involving a motor vehicle on 22nd september 1996 on Chakur-Latur State High-way and suffered multiple injuries. As a result of the accident the appellant suffered permanent disablement. The vehicle in question being registration No. MH-26-B-197 was of the ownership of respondent No. 3 and respondent No. 2 was the driver of the said vehicle. Undisputedly the said vehicle was insured with respondent No. 1 i. e. United India Insurance Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Company) Appellant filed claim petition u/s 166 of the motor Vehicles Act, 1988. (hereinafter referred to as the Act) before the motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Latur. When the claim petition was pending, the parties agreed to refer the dispute to the Lok Adalat. Accordingly, the claim petition being MAC No. 406/97 was placed before lok Adalat held at Latur on 5th October, 1997. As per the parties have consented, the Lok Adalat passed an award in terms of the consent. The applicant then filed execution petition to execute the award passed by lok Adalat. Along with the applicant's claim there were several other claims which were also placed before the Lok Adalat on 5th October, 1997. After the award passed the Insurance Company filed application before the Motor Accident claims Tribunal, Latur purported to be an application U/s 151 of the C. P. C. to review the award passed by Lok Adalat with a prayer to set aside the same. In the Review Application it was contended that after the award passed by Lok Adalat, the officers of the company made investigation and it revealed that the driving licence which was submitted by the driver in the proceedings was fake and bogus. It is contended by the company that after the said investigation and collecting necessary material from Regional Transport Office, Bombay on 29. 12. 1997, it revealed that the fraud is played on the Lok Adalat and by making representation by the owner and the driver of the vehicle, and the award came to be passed. It was also contended that when the claim was referred to Lok Adalat the company or its representative who was present before the Lok Adalat was not aware of the facts about the licence. Had this fact brought before passing of the award by the Lok Adalat, the company would not have entared into compromise as the legal defence was available to the company to deny its liability. Therefore, the company contended that the award passed by the Lok Adalat requires to be reviewed U/s 151 read with Order 47 Rule 1 of the C. P. C.

(3.) ON receipt of the application the learned Member of the Tribunal issued notice to the respondents that the appellant contended that Review application is not maintainable. The Tribunal has no jurisdiction or power to entertain the Review Application to review the award passed by the Lok Adalat. It is contended that after arriving at the settlement before the Tribunal the matter was referred to the Lok Adalat. It is further contended that the Company before entering into settlement should have verified the licence and then entered into compromise. It is contended that the Company has no locus standi to challenge the award as the original claimant was not party to the fraud. With this contention it is prayed by the claimant that the Review Application be dismissed.