FAO No.6 of 2014 (O&M)

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

FAO No.6 of 2014 (O&M)

Date of Decision:8.9.2022

Dalbir Singh and another

---Appellants

versus

Sant Singh and others

---Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL

Present:

Mr. K.S.Malik-I, Advocate

for the appellants

Mr. Puneet Jain, Advocate

for the insurance company

***

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J.

1.

The appellants through present appeal are seeking setting aside

of award dated 17.10.2012 passed by District Judge-cum-Motor Accident

Claims Tribunal, Rohtak (for short “Tribunal”) whereby learned Tribunal

has dismissed review application of the appellants.

2.

The brief facts emerging from record are that appellants who

are parents of Chand Singh filed a claim petition bearing MACT No. 166

dated 26.9.2007 seeking compensation on account of death of their son in a

motor vehicle accident. Widow of Chand Singh i.e. Smt. Munesh

alongwith her two children filed separate claim petition bearing MACT No.

108 dated 15.9.2007. Both the petitions came to be referred to Lok Adalat

which resulted into award dated 18.12.2008. On the basis of consensus of

PARAMJIT KAUR SAINI

2022.09.12 19:04

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this order/judgment

FAO No.6 of 2014 (O&M)

-2-

the parties, a sum of Rs. 4.15 Lakhs was awarded as compensation to all the

claimants including present appellants.

3.

The appellants were not present before Lok Adalat and they had

not signed compromise deed. Feeling themselves aggrieved from award of

Lok Adalat, they preferred C.W.P.No. 5966 of 2009 before this Court which

came to be dismissed vide order dated 17.1.2011 passed by Co-Ordinate

Bench of this Court. In the order dated 17.1.2011, it was observed that

award had been passed by Lok Adalat with consensus of parties and

petitioners had also been granted their share, thus, writ petition is not

maintainable. The appellants preferred LPA No. 315 of 2011 before this

Court which came to be dismissed vide order dated 20.9.2011 by Division

Bench of this Court. The appellants sought permission to withdraw LPA

with liberty to file review and Division Bench dismissed LPA with liberty

to file review. The operative portion of the order dated 20.9.2011 reads as

under:-

“Be that as it may. The case of the appellants is that they

were not parties to the settlement and not present at the

time of the passing of the award, the same having been

passed in their absence and without their consent is

liable to be set aside. This submission is contrary to the

record of the Lok Adalat, where the presence of the

counsel is specifically mentioned. If, the counsel was not

present, the appellants should have approached the Lok

Adalat seeking review of the order.

At this stage, learned counsel for the appellants

seeks to withdraw this appeal with liberty to file a review

application.

Prayer allowed.

PARAMJIT KAUR SAINI

2022.09.12 19:04

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this order/judgment

FAO No.6 of 2014 (O&M)

-3-

Dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty as prayed

for.”

[Emphasis supplied]

4.

The appellants filed review petition No. 181 of 2011 before

learned Tribunal which vide impugned order dated 17.10.2012 dismissed

the same while holding that appellants had admitted award passed by Lok

Adalat by filing Execution petition/Misc. Application No. 123 dated

17.3.2009. The operative portion of order passed by learned Tribunal is

reproduced as below:-

“7.

Regarding the submission of learned counsel for the

petitioners that neither he being counsel of the petitioners nor

the petitioners Dalbir Singh etc. were present at the time of

arriving of compromise between the parties and thus, the

award dated 18.12.2008 handed down in MACT Case No. 166

dated 26.09.2007 titled Dalbir Singh etc. Versus Sant Kumar

etc. is not binding upon the petitioners, it is pertinent