Madhya Pradesh High Court
National Insurance Company Limited vs Smt. Seema Aparaste on 22 February, 2013
Writ Petition No : 8667 / 2012
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Seema Paraste and others
22.02.2013.
Shri N.S. Ruprah for the petitioner.
Shri K.K. Kushwaha for respondents 1 to 7.
Challenge in this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is made to an order-dated 19.11.2011 - Annexure P/1, passed in MVC No.17/2009 (35/2011) by the 8th Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jabalpur and Chairman and Judicial Member of the Permanent Lok Adalat, Bench Jabalpur.
Respondents 1 to 7 filed an application seeking compensation due to death of one R.K. Paraste. A claim was made for payment of ` 15 Lacs as compensation. The matter was taken up in the Lok Adalat that was held on 10.7.2010. As a compromise award - Annexure P/5 was passed in the said Lok Adalat, whereby it is stated that the parties agreed for settlement of the claim on payment of `8.5 Lacs as compensation.
The document with regard to settlement goes to show that the Lok Adalat was held before a Bench consisting of three members, namely: A Judicial Member and Two Advocate Members. The compromise was signed by the counsel appearing for the claimants, the Insurance Company and thereafter the Insurance Company is seen to have deposited the amount.
However, on the ground that the Advocate has compromised the claim without consent of the claimants; and the claimants have not agreed for the compromise, an 2 Writ Petition No : 8667 / 2012 National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Seema Paraste and others application was filed for recall of the award and the same having been allowed, this writ petition is filed by the Insurance Company.
It is the case of the Insurance Company that when the authority was given by the claimants to the Advocate and which authority included the right to compromise, now when the compromise is entered into by the counsel, the respondents/claimants cannot wriggle out of the same and contend that the compromise is illegal.
Shri N.S. Ruprah, learned counsel for the petitioner, raised a preliminary objection and submits that when the matter was settled in the Lok Adalat and when the Bench of the Lok Adalat which passed the award on 10.7.2010 consisted of three Members, who approved the compromise, then recall of this compromise award executed in the presence of three Members cannot be recalled or reviewed by a Single Member. It is argued by him that a compromise entered into in the Lok Adalat consisting of a Bench of three Members can be reviewed/recalled only by the same Bench or a Bench of the same strength and not by a Single Member, who was either the Judicial Member or who is a Member constituting the Bench. Accordingly, contending that the Single Member or the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal has no authority to recall the award passed in the Lok Adalat, the same is unsustainable.
Shri Kushwaha, learned counsel for the claimants, submits that the action impugned is unsustainable, no settlement could be entered into without consent of the 3 Writ Petition No : 8667 / 2012 National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Seema Paraste and others claimants and as the Advocate has compromised the matter without their consent, the same is unsustainable.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on a perusal of the records, it is clear that the matter was settled in the Lok Adalat that was held on 10.7.2010, in the permanent Lok Adalat Bench at Jabalpur and the Bench consisted of three Members. If the compromise award dated 10.7.2010 was passed by a bench of three members, awarding compensation `8.5 Lacs, it is not known as to how and under what circumstances this compromise award pronounced by a Three Member Bench could be withdrawn by a Single Member. The order impugned passed by the Single Member has the effect of recalling or modifying the compromise award and if the award was passed by a Bench of three Members, recall of the same by a Single Member, without the consent of other members, prima facie seems to be unsustainable.
This aspect of the matter and the jurisdiction of the learned 19th Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jabalpur for recalling the compromise award dated 10.7.2010 is not considered and, therefore, it is a fit case where the matter should be remanded back to the court below with a direction to consider this aspect of the matter with regard to jurisdiction for recall or modification of the award.
Under section 22-B of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, a Permanent Lok Adalat is established and it consists of a person who has been a District Judge or an Additional District Judge or a Judicial Officer, who is 4 Writ Petition No : 8667 / 2012 National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Seema Paraste and others Chairman of the Permanent Lok Adalat and, thereafter two other Members fulfilling the experience and other criterion stipulated in sub-section (2)(b) of Section 22-B. It is, therefore, clear that a Permanent Lok Adalat of Three Members is constituted under section 22-B and thereafter award is passed by the said Permanent Lok Adalat in accordance to the requirement of sections 22-D and 22-E. Once an award is passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat and when the law contemplates that a Permanent Lok Adalat shall consist of Three Members, it is not known as to how and under what circumstances the Chairman of the Permanent Lok Adalat can order for recall of the award without participation or consent of the other two Members. Once an award is passed by a Bench of Three Members, who constituted the Permanent Lok Adalat, it is only the same Bench which can modify or recall the award and the authority of the Chairman alone to modify the award is not clear or established from the provisions of the statute.
This aspect of the matter warrants reconsideration and as the impugned order is passed without taking note of this legal requirement, it is a fit case where the matter should be remanded back to decide this question and the matter afresh.
Accordingly, this petition is allowed. The award-dated 19.11.2011 - Annexure P/1 is quashed and the matter is remanded back to the learned court below to reconsider the application of recall/withdrawal of the compromise, submitted by the claimants, after taking note of the aforesaid legal aspects of the matter and decided it afresh after hearing all concerned.
5Writ Petition No : 8667 / 2012 National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Seema Paraste and others Accordingly, this writ petition stands allowed and disposed of.
Records received from the court below be returned back. Certified copy as per rules.
(RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE Aks/-