Mistaken involvement of a party in insurance claims without proper disclosure invalidates awards; intentional misrepresentation is deemed fraud.

JUDGMENT :

S.K. MISHRA, J.

1. The Writ Petition has been preferred by the Petitioner-Insurance Company challenging the order dated 24.02.2020 (Annexure-9) vide which the 3^rd Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Addl. District Judge, Bhanjanagar, Ganjam rejected its petition filed U/s 151 C.P.C. to revoke the Order/Award dated 14.09.2019 (Annexure-3), passed in M.A.C. Case No.200 of 2017 in the 3^rd National Level Lok Adalat held at Civil Courts premises, Bhanjanagar.

2. The stand of the Petitioner-Insurance Company in the Writ Petition is that it was arrayed as Opposite Party No.4 in M.A.C. Case No.200 of 2017 without disclosing the Policy Number, vide which the offending vehicle i.e. OR-07-W-876, was allegedly insured with the said Company. But the Tribunal, without adhering to the mandatory requirement of law and without satisfying itself about the insurance coverage of the offending vehicle with the Petitioner Company, issued notice to it to show cause. Though the matter was adjourned to 24.09.2019 for appearance of the Respondent No.2, on which date the Presiding Officer was on leave. However, before the next date, the matter was taken up on 14.09.2019 in the 3^rd National Level Lok Adalat held at Civil Courts premises, Bhanjanagar. On the basis of compromise made between the parties, the claim was settled in terms of order dated 14.09.2019.

3. It has further been stated that due to inadvertence and oversight, the concerned Officer of the Petitioner Company so also its Advocate became a party to the said settlement which is bona fide mistake on the part of both the learned Counsel so also the Officer, who signed the said Joint Petition of Compromise with a wrong impression that the offending vehicle was insured with the Petitioner Company, as the policy number had not been disclosed in the Claim Application. Mistakenly the Petitioner Company agreed to settle the matter in the Lok Adalat. However, after realizing the said mistake committed by the concerned officer so also learned Advocate of the Petitioner Company, on 18.12.2019 a petition was filed by the Petitioner Company under Section- 151 C.P.C. to revoke the said Award. Ultimately, the said Petition filed U/s 151 C.P.C. was heard and rejected vide a common order dated 24.02.2020, as at Annexure-9, on the ground that mistake and oversight cannot under any circumstances be equated to pleading of fraud on the court to obtain the order .Hence, the present Writ Petition.

4. At this juncture, it is appropriate to extract below Paragraph Nos. 5 to 7 of the Writ Petition so also response of the present Opposite Party No.1 in Paragraph Nos.4 & 5 of the Counter Affidavit, which are germane to determine the present lis:-

EXTRACT FROM THE WRIT PETITION

“5. That when the matter stood thus, on 14.09.2019 the aforesaid claim case was put up before the National Level Lok Adalat for amicable settlement and due to oversight, basing on a wrong Policy inadvertently the Petitioner agreed to settle the said case at Rs.4,30,000/- and by Order No.14 dated 14.09.2019 the Ld. Tribunal directed the Petitioner to deposit the said amount in favour of the Opp. Party No.1 within a period of two months, failing which interest shall be charged @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application. It will be not out place to mention here that the vehicles bearing Nos.OD-7-H-2565 and OD-7-H-2585 belonging to the Opp. Party Nos.2 to 4 were insured with the Petitioner covering the risk for the period from 29.05.2015 to 28.05.2016 under Policy Nos. 2602013115P102304961and 260203115P102304966 but due to oversight and hurriedness inadvertently the Petitioner presumed that the alleged offend