1. The present three appeals have been filed by claimants impugning the orders dated 26.4.2004 vide which their claim petitions were finally settled by the Lok Adalat directing respondent No. 1 (Insurer of offending vehicle) to deposit a sum of Rs 1,75,000/- in the claim petition filed by Ramji and another, Rs 3 lacs in the claim petition filed by Sham Singh and others and Rs 1,75,000/- in their third petition filed by Sita Ram and others. Since there is delay of 429 days in filing all the three appeals, three different applications bearing No. 178 of 2005, 179 of 2005 and 180 of 2005 have been filed. The appeals have not been numbered till date on account of the aforesaid delay.

2. Pursuant to notice on all the three applications, Mr. R. K. Gupta has put in appearance on behalf of the Insurance Company and Mr. M.L. Sharma appears for the other two respondents (owner and driver of offending vehicle). The respondents have objected to the application for condonation of delay by filing their respective return.

3. Heard learned counsel for both the sides. At the very outset, Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for the Insurance Company, submits that since he has joined issue on the point of maintainability of the present appeals against the decree passed with the consent of the parties, it would be most appropriate if the said aspect is also commented upon while adjudicating the miscellaneous applications for condonation of delay, to which Mr. Bhatia, learned counsel for the claimants/appellants, also agrees.

4. Mr. Bhatia submits that the Lok Adalat has settled the claim petitions of the appellants without their knowledge and consent as the settlement was arrived at by their counsel without informing them. Taking it on hyper technical aspect, he further submits that no compromise in writing or signed by the appellants was furnished before Lok Adalat and before settlement of the case, the Court has also not recorded its satisfaction. Therefore, it is in violation of Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure. According to Mr. Bhatia, even otherwise, the amount settled in all the three claim petitions is on very lower side to which the appellants would have not given their consent.

5. Praying for condoning the delay, Mr. Bhatia submits that the appellants came to know of the order some wherein second week of September, 2005 when they inquired about the fate of their claim petitions from their counsel and thereafter they applied for the certified copy of the order for impugning the same. He then contends that the fact that the appellants were not aware of the order passed by the Lok Adalat is evident from one admitted position that the amount is still lying with the learned Tribunal at Jammu and the appellants have not withdrawn the same. All the three claim petitions are relating to death and this settlement arrived at by the counsel on his own has caused great loss to the appellants being legal heirs of the deceased.

6. In support of his contentions, Mr. Bhatia has relied upon a judgment of this Court rendered in Kamlesha Devi and others v. Oriental Insurance Company and another, CIMA 3/2002, decided on 04.08.2005, photo-stat copy thereof has been placed on record.

7. On the basis of the aforesaid submissions, Mr. Bhatia submits that although the delay, no doubt, on the face of it appears to be huge one, yet all the three applications, in the interest of justice, deserve to be allowed. In the same stress, he puts forth his view point that even at motion stage itself all the three impugned orders passed by the Lok Adalat deserve to be set aside for remitting the cases to the Tribunal for disposal in accordance with law.

8. Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for Insurance Company besides raising preliminary objection to the maintainability of present appeals because of statutory bar as contained in Section 96 (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure submits that even otherwise there is a huge delay in filing these appeals by the claimants and no ground, m

Click Here to Read the rest of this document