UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD. Vs. RAMKORI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed by the petitioner, challenging the order dated 31/1/2003 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sikar (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in Claim Petition No.147 of 2000, whereby the Tribunal has set aside the award made in the Lok Adalat on 20/11/2002.

(2.) In the instant case, it appears that the respondents-claimants had filed the claim petition before the Tribunal claiming compensation against the petitioner-Insurance Company for the death of Shri Chhotu Ram, husband of the respondent No.1, and father of the respondent Nos.3 and 4. It appears that the petitioner had filed the reply to the claim petition denying the liability of the petitioner Insurance Company. Thereafter it appears that the matter was compromised between the parties in the Lok Adalat on 20/11/2002, and accordingly the petitioner-Insurance Company was directed to pay Rs.2,10,000/- to the respondents after deducting the amount of Rs.50,000/- already paid by way of interim award. The said award appears to have been signed by the members of the Lok Adalat, the learned counsels for the parties, and also the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal. The said award was sought to be set aside by the respondents by submitting an application to the Tribunal on 27/1/2003 on the ground that the amount awarded in the Lok Adalat was inadequate . The Tribunal vide the impugned order dated 31/3/2003 set aside the said award and directed the parties to proceed further with the claim petition on merits. Being aggrieved by the same order, the present petition has been filed.

(3.) It is sought to be submitted by the learned counsel Mr. Inderjeet Singh for the petitioner that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction or authority to set aside the award made in the Lok Adalat more particularly when there was no allegation of fraud or illegality having been committed during the course of proceedings in the said Lok Adalat. He also submitted that the Tribunal without assigning any reason in the impugned order set aside the award by a stroke of pen. However, the learned counsel Mr. Rakesh Bhargava for the respondents submits that the counsel Shri Prakash Bairwa, who was earlier engaged by the respondents, was already replaced by another counsel Vidyadhar Sunda, and the said counsel Shri Prakash Bairwa had no authority to make compromise on behalf of the respondents in the Lok Adalat. He also submitted that the amount awarded in the Lok Adalat being very less as compared to the claim made by the respondents, the same was liable to be set aside and has rightly been set aside by the Tribunal. Mr. Bhargava has relied upon decisions of Apex Court in case of State of Punjab & Anr vs. Jalour Singh and Others, 2008 ACJ 2874 & Bomay High Court in case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Shabbir M. Attarwala & Ors, 2007 ACJ 2860.