The limited grounds for challenging Lok Adalat awards as established by previous Supreme Court judgments.

ORDER :

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.

The instant petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed for the grant of following relief(s):

“(a) That writ of certiorari may kindly be passed thereby quashing and setting aside the order dated 27.3.2021 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Kinnaur, Civil Division at Rampur Bushehr District Shimla (HP) in the Lok Adalat in case No. MACT 68/2017 and directing the Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Kinnaur Civil Division at Rampur Bushehr, District Shimla (HP) to decide the petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act filed by the petitioner on merits after affording proper opportunity of being heard to the parties and the office of learned Tribunal below may be directed to produce the entire record relating to Case No.MACT 68/2017.

(b) Awarding costs of the proceedings in favour of the petitioner against the respondents.”

2. The petitioner had filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for grant of compensation before learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short ‘MACT’), Kinnaur. During the course of evidence, the case was referred to the Lok Adalat held on 27.3.2021,which passed the following order:

“The statements of the parties recorded separately. This petition has been compromised. The Insurance Company undertook to pay Rs. 90,000/- to the petitioner which is acceptable to him. Further the Insurance Company undertook to deposit this amount within 45 days and in view of the statements of parties, the petition stands compromised and Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount within 45 days and in the event of failure to deposit the amount, the petitioner shall be entitled to recover the amount with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of order till realization. Statements of learned counsel for Insurance Company and petitioner shall form part and parcel of this award. Memo of costs be prepared. File after due completion be consigned to the record room.”

3. Now the claim of the petitioner is that he was under the belief that the award whereby a meager amount of Rs. 90,000/- had been granted as compensation in his favour was only an interim award, which was to be followed by a final Award.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material placed on record.

5. The records reveal that the statement of the petitioner was recorded on 27.3.2021 and was to the following effect:

“Stated that I have compromised with respondents. Insurance Company is ready to pay Rs. 90,000/-to me, for which I am agreed. Insurance Company has promised to pay the above said amount within 45 days, for which I am agreed. As per statement, order be passed.”

6. Here it is relevant to make note of the statement of the counsel for Insurance Company that was recorded separately and reads as under:

“Stated that I have been authorized by the company official to compromise the matter with the petitioner. I hereby proposed to pay Rs. 90,000/-(ninety thousand only) being full and final payment to the petitioner and the same is acceptable to him. The company will deposit the aforesaid amount within 45 days. Therefore, the petition may kindly be decided in terms of the aforesaid compromise.”

7. There is nothing on record to even remotely suggest that the petitioner,who is otherwise an educated and has retired from government service, would have thought, muchless considered the award passed by Lok Adalat to be only interim in nature, especially when he has understood the offer made by the Insurance Company. Rather his statement is to the contrary.

8. At this stage, it needs to be noticed that no doubt the award passed by the Lok Adalat can be assailed by filing a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India, but on a very limited ground as held by a three judges Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in “State of Punjab and another versus Jalour Singh and others”, (2008) 2 Supreme Court Cases 660, when in para-12 o