Hon’ble S.U. Khan, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.S.Amist, learned counsel for the Oriental Insurance Company through Divisional and Regional Managers concerned respondent Nos. 3 and 4.

2. A claim petition filed by the petitioner before the II Additional District Judge/ Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hamirpur in the form of M.A.C.T. No. 29/98 was sent to the Lok Adalat, where petitioner did not appear allegedly due to illness. Lok Adalat dismissed the claim petition in default of petitioner applicant on 24.10.1999. Restoration application was filed on 17.11.1999 before M.A.C.T./ II A.D.J. in the form of Misc. Case No. 7/74 of 1999. The restoration application was rejected on 15.12.1999 on the ground that the Lok Adalat had dismissed the claim petition in default hence the A.D.J. had no power to restore the same. Lok Adalat cannot dismiss claim petition in default. Its jurisdiction is limited. It can persuade the parties to enter into compromise and in case of failure send the file back to the Court with the endorsement that no compromise could take place. If a party does not appear, then it shows only two things. Firstly either he was not aware of the date on which he was absent or was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing or secondly he was not interested in the compromise.

3. Section 20(5) of Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 is quoted below:

“(5) Where no award is made by the Lok Adalat on the ground that no compromise or settlement could be arrived at between the parties, the record of the case shall be returned by it to the Court, from which the reference has been received under sub-section (1) for disposal in accordance with law.”

4. Accordingly, the order of Lok Adalat dismissing the claim petition in default was utterly without jurisdiction. Even after sending the case to the Lok Adalat, the Court which sent the case retains control over it and ultimate order/ decree is to be passed by it. Accordingly, the II A.D.J./ M.A.C.T. had full jurisdiction to correct and undo the blunder committed by the Lok Adalat.

5. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. Impugned order passed by M.A.C.T./ II A.D.J. dated 15.12.1999 is quashed. Restoration application is allowed and order dated 24.10.1999 by Lok Adalat is also set aside. The claim petition is restored to its original number before MACT/ II A.D.J., Hamirpur. However, before proceeding further the Additional District Judge/ M.A.C.T. shall issue notices to respondent Nos. 5, 6 and 7 owners and driver of the offending truck.

6. Petitioner and Insurance Company are directed to appear before the Tribunal below alongwith certified copy of this judgment on 27.4.2011.

—————