Fraud renders awards obtained through Lok Adalat void; strict verification of parties' identity is crucial to uphold legal integrity.

JUDGMENT :

C.S.DIAS, J.

The petitioner is the claimant in O.P.(M.V.) No.1753/2018 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Palakkad ('Tribunal', in short), filed by him against the respondents for compensation. On 29.11.2017, the bus bearing No: KL-15-9579, belonging to the 1^st respondent, driven by the 2^nd respondent and insured with the 3^rd respondent, collided with the bus in which the petitioner was travelling, and he suffered serious injuries. The Kongadu Police registered a crime and filed their charge sheet before the Judicial First-Class Magistrate Court-II, Palakkad, against the 2^nd respondent. The 3^rd respondent-Insurance Company objected to the claim petition on the ground that the petitioner had earlier filed O.P(MV) No.712/2018 before the same Tribunal, and the claim was settled by Ext.P5 award passed by the District Legal Services Committee, Palakkad (‘DLSA’, in short). Therefore, O.P.(M.V.) No.1753/2018 (‘Ext.P2 claim petition’, in short) is to be dismissed. The petitioner has not filed O.P.No.712/2018. On enquiry, the petitioner learnt that the claim petition was filed in the name of the petitioner through one Advocate K.Jelly, claiming Rs.40,000/- as compensation. Ext.P5 award is non-est factum and is perse illegal. Ext.P5 award has been passed by adopting fraudulent methods by some person by impersonating the petitioner. Ext.P5 award is liable to be set aside.

2. The 3^rd respondent has filed a counter affidavit denying the allegations in the writ petition. It is contended that the petitioner had not suffered any injuries as alleged in the writ petition. The petitioner cannot file a second claim petition after the first claim petition was settled in the Lok Adalat. The petitioner's sole intention is to unlawfully enrich himself. O.P. No.712/2018 contains the same documents produced in the subsequently filed Ext.P2 claim petition. Ext.P5 award is signed by a Judicial Officer, an Advocate Member, the petitioner and his counsel and the official of the Insurance Company and their Counsel. Therefore, to say that such an award is fabricated is unbelievable. It is also difficult to accept the contention that the petitioner had not entrusted the case to any other Advocate. The writ petition is an abuse of process of law and may be dismissed.

3. When the writ petition came up for hearing on 13.01.2025, this Court, considering the seriousness and gravity of the allegations in the writ petition, called for the records in O.P.No.712/2018. The Tribunal was also directed to defer all further proceedings in the Ext.P2 claim petition.

4. On examining the records leading to Ext.P5 award and prima facie finding that there are glaring differences in the signatures of the claimants in the two claim petitions and that the first claim petition was filed through Adv.K.Jelly, this Court suo motu impleaded Adv. K.Jelly as the additional 4^th respondent in the writ petition, and ordered notice to him. However, the notice returned with an endorsement that the additional 4^th respondent is no more. It was reported that the Advocate had an unnatural death. Accordingly, this Court called for a report from the Tribunal to find out whether the additional fourth respondent was dead. By communication dated 03.03.2025, the Tribunal has informed that the additional fourth respondent died on 30.07.2024.

5. The petitioner asserts that he has not filed O.P.No.712/2018 before the Tribunal. The claim pet