Patna High Court
Branch Manager, New India Assurance Co. ... vs Mohd. Yasin Khan And Ors. on 6 August, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2003ACJ895, 2001(49)BLJR1859
Author: S.N. Pathak
Bench: S.N. Pathak
JUDGMENT S.N. Pathak, J.
1. This miscellaneous appeal is directed against the order dated 24.2.1994 refusing the prayer of the appellant to stay the realisation of amount of Rs. 50,000 attempted through realisation certificate issued from the Claims Tribunal.
2. It was submitted on behalf of the appellant's lawyer that the Claim Case Nos. 5 of 1988 and 3 of 1991, pending before 3rd Additional District Judge-cum-Claims Tribunal, Bettiah (West Champaran). The matter was referred to the Lok Adalat. However, in the Lok Adalat the parties failed to come to terms, but later on it was scribed on the back of the order passed by the Lok Adalat that the insurance company (appellant) had agreed to pay Rs. 50,000 to the claimants who had preferred the claim case for compensation on account of the death of their kith and kin who was a passenger travelling in a bus. It was lastly submitted that the Lok Adalat did not pass a valid order, rather the order containing the so-called agreement was a forged one and, moreover, the insurance company was not liable for paying any compensation beyond the statutory limit of Rs. 18,000 under Section 95(2)(b)(ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The Tribunal in the impugned order dated 24.2.1994 failed to consider these aspects of the matter and passed the impugned order beyond the provisions of law.
3. In this miscellaneous appeal both sides were heard.
4. On perusal of Annexure 1 and its original in the record of the claim case, I find that on the printed form there is an endorsement under the signatures of the claimant and some advocates of opposite parties perhaps, including the opposite party insurance company. On the back page of this form there is an endorsement that subsequently the parties had agreed to an amount of Rs. 50,000 along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent to be paid by the insurance company. However, the back page under the endorsement contains only the signature of, perhaps, claimant, but there is no signature of any other party or their advocates. So, of course, the order passed by the Lok Adalat is of a suspicious character. It is, therefore, not understandable under what circumstances the Tribunal issued a certificate for realisation of the aforesaid amount which was fixed by the so-called decision of the Lok Adalat. Of course, an objection in this connection was filed by the insurance company beyond 30 days of the decision of the Lok Adalat but, the moot question is whether the decision which was of a suspicious character would be the basis for realisation of the amount of compensation from the insurance company. Moreover, a technical objection was also raised by the appellant's lawyer to the effect that the advocate who appeared on behalf of the insurance company had no authority to agree to an amount beyond the statutory limit fixed by law. In this view of the matter also the concerned order of the Lok Adalat was challenged.
5. On perusal of Annexure 1 and its original in the lower court records, it is apparent that the back page of the Lok Adalat's order neither contains the signature of the representative of the insurance company nor any other party. So, of course, there appears to be something fishy in the order passed by the Lok Adalat which was the basis of certificate issued against the appellant. The so-called order of the Lok Adalat would rather be treated as 'non est' because the operative part of the order did not contain any signature of the opposite parties except that of the claimant. Unless the opposite parties signed the so-called agreement the signature of the claimant was odious and it could not bind the insurance company and other opposite parties in a claim case. So, the order was, of course, non est. In such circumstances the limit of time placed upon the insurance company to file objection was not applicable. The impugned order passed by the Tribunal was, therefore, also vitiated by legal flaws.
6. So, the impugned order is set aside and this appeal is, accordingly, allowed. The matter shall go back to the concerned Tribunal for deciding the claim case in accordance with the provisions of law afresh.