KESAR SINGH Vs. BALBIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of an award dated 19.11.1994 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bhadarwah, on the basis of a compromise arrived at between the parties in Lok Adalat, whereby an amount of Rs. 1,50,000 was awarded in favour of the appellant in respect of death of four members of his family, i.e., his wife, two minor daughters and a minor son, aged 26 years, 3 years, 1 year 5 months and 3 years 8 months respectively.

(2.) The facts as mentioned in the appeal are that in a road accident which occurred on 2.11.1988 at Raghi Nallah, NH 1B Batote, Kishtwar, the deceased were killed on spot. A claim petition was filed by the appellant before Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bhadarwah, through one Mr. M.A. Kitchloo, Advocate. While the said petition was pending, a transfer application being C.T.A. No. 59 of 1994 was filed before this court seeking transfer of the claim petition from Bhadarwah to Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jammu. The High Court was pleased to transfer the claim petition vide order dated 28.7.1995. The appellant could not appear before Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jammu and under these circumstances the claim petition was sent back to Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bhadarwah. The counsel engaged by the appellant entered into a compromise in hot haste with the insurance company when the case was listed before Lok Adalat held on 19.11.1994 at Bhadarwah. On the basis of compromise so arrived at before the Lok Adalat, the claim was settled for an amount of Rs. 1,50,000 inclusive of interim relief. This award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has been assailed on the solitary ground that the counsel should have made the statement before the Lok Adalat after obtaining consent of the appellant. Counsel entered into the settlement for a paltry sum of Rs. 1,50,000 and deprived the appellant of his due compensation. The appellant has also accused his counsel of misconduct. The appellant has also placed on record copy of a letter (post card) whereby appellant was asked to appear for evidence on 3.3.1993, otherwise the evidence may be closed on that day.

(3.) According to the learned counsel for respondents the appeal against the consent award is not maintainable under law. He wanted to press into service the provisions of section 20 (2) of J&K Legal Services Authority Act, 1997. In addition to this, he has stated that even under general principles of law, i.e., section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure, no appeal lies against a consent decree.