BIDYUTPRAVA DEI Vs. M/S RAJ CONSTRUCTION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ application is directed against the order dated 1.9.2001 passed by the 1st M.A.C.T., Puri in M.A.C. No.624 of 1999 on the application filed by the opposite party No.2 on 26.3.2001 for withdrawal from the conditional compromise that had taken place in the State Level Lok Adalat.

(2.) THE petitioners are the claimants in M.A.C.T. 624 of 1999. they had filed an application claiming compensation on the ground that husband of the petitioner No.1 met with an accident caused by a trekker and succumbed to the injuries sustained in course of the accident due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. The matter was placed before the State Level Lok Adalat on 1.7.2000 and a compromise was arrived at between the petitioners and the opposite party No.2 and it was decided that the opposite party No.2 shall pay compensation of Rs.2,80,000/ - to the petitioners subject to satisfaction of the conditions mentioned in the memorandum of compromise. After the matter was disposed of in the State Level Lok Adalat a petition and an affidavit were filed before the Tribunal praying for permission to withdraw from the compromise on the ground that the deceased -husband of the petitioner No.1 did not die due to road accident as claimed but committed suicide by jumping in the front of the offending vehicle. In the impugned order prayer of the opposite party No.2 to withdraw from the compromise having been allowed the present writ application has been filed by the claimants challenging the said order.

(3.) SHRI Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No.2 contended that when the matter was placed before the State Level Lok Adalat the Insurance Company had not filed its written statement and investigation was not complete. In view of the above, the opposite party No.2 - Insurance Company agreed for a compromise and the matter was settled in the Lok Adalat subject to verification of certain conditions. When it was found that there was no such accident and the deceased had committed suicide, a petition was filed before the Tribunal to permit the opposite party No.2 to withdraw from the compromise. Shri Mohanty further contended that the Tribunal being satisfied that fraud had been committed by the petitioners by filing a false claim case and getting it compromised before the Lok Adalat before written statement was filed by the Insurance Company, the opposite party No.2 -Insurance company was permitted to withdraw from the compromise. Shri Mohanty also relied on a decision to show that when the Court is satisfied that fraud had been committed on it by one of the parties for the purpose of compromise, it can always permit the party who has been a victim of the fraud to withdraw from the compromise.