Proceedings before the Lok Adalat can only be settled with the agreement of the parties, and any material or statement made before the Lok Adalat cannot be considered by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal if no settlement is reached before the Lok Adalat.

1. This case is a sad reflection of the highly improper manner in which claim petitions under the Motor Vehicles Act are disposed of.

2. The claimant filed a claim petition claiming compensation on account of injuries allegedly suffered in a motor vehicle accident. The discharge certificate clearly reflects that the claimant had suffered injuries to the cervical spine and there was a fracture of C2 lamina with mild posterior displacement of the neural arch. No dislocation of L2/L3 junction. No disablement certificate is on record. It appears that the petition was taken up by the Lok Adalat and in the Lok Adalat the following order was passed on 09.12.2007.

“09.12.2007.

The case record is placed before the 3rd Session of Traditional Lok Adalat, 2007, in Court No.4.

At the time of hearing the O.P. insurance company challenged the severity of the injury sustained by the victim girl. Accordingly, the victim girl is examined by an orthopedic surgeon in the Lok Adalat on duty and he opined that the injury may or may not be recovered in future. The doctor also opined that in future so many complications may arise in the body of the victim girl.

So, the insurance company do not want to settle the case for jurisdictional question.

So, Send back the case record to the referring Court for disposal according to law.

Member (MACT)

West Tripura

Agartala.”

This order has been passed by the same officer who finally passed the award. The order clearly shows that before the Lok Adalat the insurance company was represented. It also clearly shows that the orthopedic surgeon who was there to assist the Lok Adalat opined that the injury may or may not be recovered (sic, probably meant cured) in future. The order also shows that the doctor opined that complications may arise in future.

3. At the outset I may observe that proceedings before the Lok Adalat can be settled only with the agreement of the parties. A Lok Adalat has no right or authority to adjudicate on a matter and pass an order without the consent of the parties. A doctor is there to assist the Lok Adalat only for the purpose of assisting the Lok Adalat in coming to the conclusion as to what is the nature of injuries etc. The doctor who is present before the Lok Adalat is a person to assist the Lok Adalat and is not a witness in the case. He cannot be examined or cross-examined. His statement cannot be recorded.

4. The order only depicts that this doctor had opined that the injury may be cured or may not be cured in future. The doctor has not stated anything as to what is the percentage of disability. The Doctor obviously could not be cross-examined. In fact, in this case there is no recorded opinion or statement of the Doctor and the only material is available in the order sheet. I am clearly of the view that any material or statement made before the Lok Adalat cannot be taken into consideration by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal while deciding the case on merits, in case no settlement is arrived at before the Lok Adalat and the matter is sent back to the Tribunal. If the matter is not settled before the Lok Adalat then the Tribunal has to decide the matter on the basis of the evidence recorded by it and the material before the Tribunal and not on the basis of some statements which were made before the Lok Adalat.

5. There is another unfortunate aspect of the case. The presiding officer of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has made totally false statements with regard to what transpired before the Lok Adalat. The relevant portion of the final award passed by the Lok Adalat reads as follows :

“It is also observed that the matter in dispute was put before the Lok Adalat for compromise but due to unavailability of the agent of the Insurance Company they could not make any compromise at that time and the matter ends without compromise on 09.12.2007. It also observed from the case record that the Medical Officer who attended the Lok Adalat after examining the victim/petitioner opined that the inj