2022 Supreme(Online)(MP) 2084
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL
ON THE 29th OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
MISC. PETITION No. 3031 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY
LIMITED
DIVISIONAL OFFICER THROUGH ITS T P HUB
INCHARGE HOTEL AMAR PALACE PHOOLBAGH
CHOURAHA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(SHRI SHRINIVAS GAJENDRAGADKAR, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR
PETITIONER)
AND
1.
SUDAMA
PRASAD
S/O
SH
SUNDER
LAL
CHOBEY
, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, VILLAGE
MANGRONI SHIVPURI AT PRESENT RANGER
HOUSE
SINDE
KI
CHHA
W
ANI
LASHKAR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2.
SMT HARKUNW
AR W/O SH. SUDAMA PRASAD
CHOBEY
,
AGED
ABOUT
70
YEARS, VILL.
MANGRONI,
DISTT
SHIVPURI
PRESENT
RANGER
HOUSE
SHINDE
KI
CHHA
W
ANI,
LASHKAR, GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)
3.
MAY
ANK CHOUBEY
S/O LATE SH. PURSOTTAM
CHOUBEY
,
AGED
ABOUT
23
YEARS, VILL.
MANGRONI, DISTT. SHIVPURI AT PRESENT
RANGER
HOUSE
SHINDE
KI
CHHA
W
ANI,
LASHKAR, GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)
4.
SUDAMA CHOUBEY
S/O LATE SH. PURSOTTAM
CHOUBEY
,
AGED
ABOUT
23
YEARS, VILL.
MANGRONI,
DISTT
SHIVPURI
PRESENT
RANGER
HOUSE
SHINDE
KI
CHHA
W
ANI,
LASHKAR, GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)
5.
KANHAIY
A
LAL
CHOUBEY
S/O
LATE
SH.
PURSOTTAM
CHOUBEY
,
AGED
ABOUT
18
YEARS, VILL. MANGRONI, SHIVPURI PRESENT
RANGER
HOUSE
SHINDE
KI
CHHA
W
ANI,
LASHKAR, GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)
6.
KAMAL SINGH S/O SH. CHANDAN SINGH, AGED
ABOUT 43 YEARS, VILL. MADIKHEDA, TEH.
NARWAR, SHIVPURI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR SHARMA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR
RESPONDENT [R-1])
This petition coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the
following:
Shrinivas Gajendragadkar,
ORDER
This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner-Insurance Company assailing the order dated 28.06.2022 passed in Case No.14/2022(Review) by Tenth Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Gwalior by which the application filed by the Insurance Company under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 151 CPC seeking review of the compromise order passed by Lokadalat has been dismissed.
Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that without verifying the documents, Insurance Company entered into the compromise with respondents but subsequently when the permit and fitness of the insured vehicle were verified, the same were not found to be valid on the date of accident.
Thereafter Insurance Company filed application under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 151 CPC seeking review of the compromise order passed by Lokadalat. Hence, petitioner-Insurance Company by way of present petition prays for setting aside the order dated 28.06.2022 and recalling of compromise order dated 11.12.2021. In support of the contention, learned counsel for Insurance Company has relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in State of Punjab and another Vs. Jalour Singh and Ors.
reported in 2008 AIR (SC) 1029.
Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the prayer made by petitioner-Insurance Company relying upon decision of Hob'ble Apex Court rendered in K.Srinivasappa and Ors. Vs. M.Mallamma and others 2022 SC Online SC 636.
Upon perusal of the judgment relied upon by the petitioner-Insurance Company, it appears that the said judgment was passed without consent of parties while in the present case compromise order was passed based on the mutual consent of both the parties. Hence, the judgment relied upon by the petitioner is of no avail.
Section 22E of The Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 reads as under:-
- "22E. Award of Permanent Lok Adalat to be final -(1) Every award of the Permanent Lok Adalat under this Act made either on merit or in terms of a settlement agreement shall be final and binding on all the parties thereto and on persons claiming under them.
- (2) Every award of the Permanent Lok Adalat under this Act shall be deemed to be a decree of a civil court.
- (3) The award made by the Permanent Lok Adalat under this Act shall be by a majority of the persons constituting the Permanent Lok Adalat.
- (4) Every award made by the Permanent Lok Adalat under this Act shall be final and shall not be called in question in any original suit, application or execution proceedings.
- (5) The Permanent Lok Adalat may transmit any award made by it to a civil court having local jurisdiction and such civil court shall execute the order as if it were a decree made by that court."
- On going through the said provisions, it is clear that the award of Permanent Lok Adalat is neither appealable nor it can be called in question in original suit, application or execution proceeding. No provision or exceptional ground has been brought to my notice contrary to the said provision. Hence, learned court below has not committed any illegality in rejecting the application under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 151 of CPC filed by the petitioner-
- Insurance Company.
- This Misc. Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
- (DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL) JUDGE ojha