The court emphasized the need for adjudication in disposing of a case and clarified the scope of judicial review under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

MIR DARA SHEKO, J.

1. Heard Mr. Mondal representing the petitioners-claimants. Heard also Mr. Singh appearing for the opposite party No. 1- insurance company. Considering the nature of the proceeding and the very lis involved in the matter service of notice upon the rest opposite parties No. 2-6 is dispensed with at the risk of the petitioners for consideration and disposal of the CO on merits.

2. Upon hearing and on the face of the materials on record if reveals that the petitioners had filed a claim application under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Suri, Birbhum for accidental death of their predecessor impleading both the offending vehicles vis-à-vis the respective insurance companies, namely Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. and Future Generali Insurance Company Ltd.

3. During pendency of such Motor Accident Claim Case No. 17/2011 the case was referred to the Lok Adalat. The learned Judges of Lok Adalat, for the reasons best known to them, disposed of said claim case between the claimants and Future Generali India Insurance, Co. Ltd. for a sum of Rs. 1,50,000 keeping the claim case alive against other offending motor vehicle and its insurer, namely Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. and said claim case was accordingly directed to place before the regular tribunal by recording of such partial settlement.

4. As a consequence of such partial settlement in the Lok Adalat, though it is unknown apparently in the process of disposal before the Lok Adalat, the name of the concerned vehicle and said Future Generali India Insurance Co. Ltd. was expunged before the tribunal.

5. Learned Tribunal by recording the impugned order in view of the above partial settlement curiously observed as follows: "Thus question of existence of claim against Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited do not arise." Accordingly, pursuant to the prayer of the petitioners regarding handing over of the cheque by aforesaid Future Generali India Insurance Co. Ltd. learned tribunal disposed of the case by recording the last sentence as follows: "Thus the instant case is fully disposed of."

6. As to the maintainability of the application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, Mr. Mondal submitted that since the matter was partially disposed of between the claimants and Future Generali India Insurance Co. Ltd. before the Lok Adalat and since against the order of the Lok Adalat no appeal lies and since learned Tribunal fully disposed of the case without adjudicating the claim as against the rest opposite parties to the claim case including Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., the impugned order is perverse and suffers; from illegality and hence interference of the High Court is required.

7. Mr. Mondal in support of his contention relied on the case of State of Punjab & Anr. v. Jalour Singh & Ors., the case decided by Three-Judge Bench, reported in (2003) 2 SCC 660 : (2008)2 WBLR (SC) 265 (paras. 11 and 12).

8. Mr. Mondal concluded submitting to set aside the impugned order by allowing the application so that the trial may be conducted by learned tribunal for settling the rest part of the claim as against other opposite parties and their insurer Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.

9. Mr. Singh, per contra, invited my attention and confined his arguments since learned Tribunal concluded the impugned order by recording the last line as: "Thus the instant case is fully disposed of." Mr. Singh supporting the order impugned tried to impress upon that learned tribunal considering the entire facts and events held before the Lok Adalat when observed that question of existence of claim against his client did no more arise and as a consequence thereof the instant case was fully disposed of in the form of revision of such order within the ambit of Article 227 of the Constitution would not be applicable. Submitted further, the impugned order at best is appealable within the am