Anil A.S. v. Azeez A.P., Rajesh, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., and Taluk Legal Services Authority, Thodupuzha

WA.No.568 OF 2021 -1- # **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY** **MONDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 8TH CHAITHRA, 1943** ## **WA.No.568 OF 2021** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 18021/2020(C) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA** ## **APPELLANT/S:** **ANIL A.S., AGED 47 YEARS, S/O. SIVASANKARAN NAIR, KALLAMPILLIL, (ANIKKATTU) HOUSE, MANAKKAD KARA, MANAKKAD P.O, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI 685 608.** **BY ADVS. SRI.GEORGE MATHEW SRI.M.D.SASIKUMARAN SHRI.PRAVEEN S. SHRI.SUNIL KUMAR A.G SRI.DIPU JAMES SHRI.MATHEW K.T. SHRI.GEORGE K.V.** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** |**1**|**AZEEZ A.P.**| |---|---| ||**PULPARAYIL HOUSE, KOLANI P.O, THODUPUZHA VILLAGE**| ||**AND TALUK, IDUKKI 685 608 (OWNER OF KL-38/4561 AUTO**| ||**RICKSHAW)**| |**2**|**RAJESH**| ||**S/O. MOHANAN, PUTHENPURACKAL HOUSE,**| ||**PANCHAVADIPPALAM, KOLANI KARA, THODUPUZHA VILLAGE**| ||**AND TALUK, IDUKKI 685 608**| |**3**|**ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD,**| ||**REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, 2ND FLOOR,**| ||**PUTHENPURACKEL CHAMBERS, VELI, PALLURUTHY, COCHIN**| ||**682 006**| WA.No.568 OF 2021 -2- **4 THE TALUK LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY, THODUPUZHA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DISTRICT COURT COMPLEX, MUTTOM P.O, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT 685 587** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **SRI. ALEXY AUGUSTINE SRI. ARAVINDAKUMAR BABU.T.K., SR.GP FOR R4** **THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** WA.No.568 OF 2021 -3- ## **J U D G M E N T** Dated this the 29[th] day of March, 2021 ## S. Manikumar, C. J. Instant writ petition is filed challenging the judgment dated 13.01.2021 in W. P. (C) No. 18021 of 2020, by which a learned Single Judge refused to grant the reliefs sought for. 2. Short facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are as follows:- According to the petitioner, he filed O.P. (MV) No. 399 of 2010 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thodupuzha, claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 11,32,500/-, and limiting to Rs. 10,00,000/-, on account of the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident which occurred on 16.08.2009 at Thodupuzha. Mr. Azeez A. P., the 1[st] respondent, is the owner and Mr. Rajesh, the 2[nd] respondent, is the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident and Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., the 3[rd] respondent, is the insurer. The 4[th] respondent is the Taluk Legal Service Authority, Thodupuzha, WA.No.568 OF 2021 -4- which conducted a Lok Adalath on 05.03.2012, where the case was settled as evidenced by Ext.P7 award dated 05.03.2012, ignoring the injuries and disabilities sustained by petitioner. Petitioner has submitted that the case was settled for a nominal amount of Rs. 4,25,000/-, as against the claim of Rs. 11,32,500/-, which was limited to Rs. 10,00,000/-. On account of the same, severe and substantial loss has been caused to the petitioner. Considering the nature of injuries sustained and consequential suffering, the amount awarded is only a meager amount. There is substantial reduction in the amount due to the petitioner and a reconsideration of the matter is essential. Petitioner has also submitted that when the case was considered in Lok Adalath, the petitioner was made to believe that, as the case was forwarded for settlement, it cannot be sent back and considered by the learned Tribunal again. 3. Being aggrieved, W. P. (C) No. 18021 of 2020 has been filed seeking for the following reliefs:- “i) to call for the records leading to the issuance of Ext. P7 Award, and issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing the same; WA.No.568 OF 2021 -5- ii) to pass an order directing Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thodupuzha to consider Ext.P4 afresh and pass award considering the issues involved in the case” ## 4. After considering the rival submissions, writ court dismissed the above writ petition as follows:- “8. The accident was on 16.08.2009. The Lok Adalat passed Ext.P7 Award on 05.03.2012. It is not disputed that the Adalat passed the Award on the basis of a settlement arrived at in which both parties signed a written agreement. The petitioner's contention that he had signed the settlement due to extreme financial compulsions and family pressures, cannot be a sufficient reason to interfere with the settlement recorded by the Adalat. Furthermore, the petitioner has received and appropriated the amount received pursuant to the Award immediately after 05.03.2012. The petitioner has approached this Court after nearly eight years. In such circumstances, I find that the writ petition is without any merit and decline interference with Ext.P7 Award. The writ petition is dismissed accordingly.” ## 5. Assailing the correctness of the judgment dated 13.01.2021 in ## W. P. (C) No. 18021 of 2020, instant writ appeal is filed. 6. Mr. George Mathew, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that, at the time of settlement, appellant was under acute WA.No.568 OF 2021 -6- financial stringency and in dire need of money and he could not withstand the pressure exerted by the members while arriving at a settlement. He further submitted that, while the case was considered in Lok Adalath, the appellant was made to believe that, as the case was forwarded for settlement, it cannot be sent back and considered by the learned Tribunal again, and therefore, the appellant had agreed for the settlement. He made submissions on the grounds raised in this appeal, as regards the nature of injury, extent of disablement, and consequently, the inadequacy in compensation, settled in Lok Adalath. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material on record. 8. In **Indira and another v. Kuppu and others** [2013 SCC Online Mad 1004 : (2013) 3 LW 620], the Madras High Court in paragraphs 19 and 20, held thus:- “19. Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 (39 of 1987) has been enacted for the weaker sections of the society, to ensure that opportunities for securing justice are not denied to any citizen by reason of economic or other disabilities, and to organise Lok Adalats to secure that the operation of the legal system promotes justice on a basis of legal opportunity. Some of the relevant provisions in the said Act are extracted hereunder: WA.No.568 OF 2021 -7- “19. Organisation of Lok Adalats.— (1) Every State Authority or District Authority or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee or every High Court Legal Services Committee or, as the case may be, Taluk Legal Services Committee may organise Lok Adalats at such intervals and places and for exercising such Jurisdiction and for such areas as it thinks fit. (2) Every Lok Adalat organised for an area shall consist of such number of— (a) serving or retired judicial officers; and (b) other persons, of the area as may be specified by the State Authority or the District Authority or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee or the High Court Legal Services Committee, or as the case may be, the Taluk Legal Services Committee, organising such Lok Adalat. (3) The experience and qualifications of other persons referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (2) for Lok Adalats organised by the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee shall be such as may be prescribed by the Central Government in consultation with the Chief Justice of India. (4) The experience and qualifications of other persons referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (2) for Lok Adalats other than referred to in sub-section (3) shall be such as may be prescribed by the State Government in consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court. (5) A Lok Adalat shall have jurisdiction to determine and to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties to a dispute in respect of— (i) any case pending before; or (ii) any matter which is falling within the jurisdiction of and is not brought before, any court for which the Lok Adalat is organised: WA.No.568 OF 2021 -8- Provided that the Lok Adalat shall have no jurisdiction in respect of any case or matter relating to an offence not compoundable under any law. 20. Cognizance of cases by Lok Adalats.— (1) Where in any case referred to in clause (i) of sub-section (5) of Section 19,— (i)(a) the parties thereof agree; or (b) one of the parties thereof makes an application to the court, for referring the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement and if such court is prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement; or (ii) the court issatisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat, the court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat: Provided that no case shall be referred to the Lok Adalat under sub- clause (b) of clause (i) or clause (ii) by such court except after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the Authority or Committee organising the Lok Adalat under subsection (1) of Section 19 may, on receipt of an application from any one of the parties to any matter referred to in clause (ii) of sub-section (5) of Section 19 that such matter needs to be determined by a LokAdalat, refer such matter to the Lok Adalat, for determination: Provided that no matter shall be referred to the Lok Adalat except after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the other party. (3) Where any case is referred to a Lok Adalat under sub-section (1) or where a reference has been made to it under sub-section (2), the Lok Adalat shall proceed to dispose of the case or matter and arrive at a compromise Or settlement between the parties. WA.No.568 OF 2021 -9- (4) Every Lok Adalat shall while determining any reference before it under this Act, act with utmost expedition to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties and shall be guided by the principles of justice, equity, fair play and other legal principles. (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 receive under sub-section (1) for disposal in accordance with law. (6) Where no award is made by the Lok Adalat on the ground that no compromise or settlement could be arrived at between the parties, in a matter referred to in sub-section (2), that Lok Adalat shall advice the parties to see in a court. (7) Where the record of the case is returned under sub-section (5) to the court, such court shall proceed to deal with such case from the stage which was reached before such reference under sub-section (1). 21. Award of Lok Adalat.— (1) Every award of the Lok Adalat shall be deemed to be a decree of a civil court or, as the case may be, as order of any other court and where a compromise or settlement has been arrived at, by a Lok Adalat in a case referred to it under subsection (1) of Section 20, the court-fee paid in such case shall be refunded in the manner provided under the Court-fees Act, (7 of) 1870]. (2) Every award made by a Lok Adalat shall be final and binding on all the parties to the dispute, and no appeal shall lie to any court against the award. 22. Powers of Lok Adalats.— (1) The Lok Adalat shall, for the purpose of holding any determination under this Act, have the same powers as are vested in a civil court under the Code of Civil WA.No.568 OF 2021 -10- Procedure (5 of) 1908, while trying a suit in respect of the following matters, namely:— (a) the summoning and enforcing the attendance of any witness and examining him on oath; (b) the discovery and production of any document; (c) the reception of evidence on affidavits; (d) the requisitioning of any public record or document or copy of such record or document from any court or office; and (e) such other matters as may be prescribed. (2) Without prejudice to the generality of the powers contained in sub-section (1), every Lok Adalat shall have the requisite powers to specify its own procedure for the determination of any dispute coming before it. (3) All proceedings before a Lok Adalat shall be deemed to be judicial proceedings within the meaning of Sections 193, 219 and 228 of the Penal Code, 1860 Act, (45 of) 1860 and every Lok Adalat shall be deemed to be a civil court for the purpose of Section 195 and Chapter XXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act, (2 of) 1973.” 20. As per the provisions of the Legal Services Act, 1987, every award of the Lok Adalat shall be deemed to be a decree of a civil court or, as the case may be, as order of any other court and where a compromise or settlement has been arrived at, by a Lok Adalat in a case referred to it under sub-section (1) of Section 20, the court-fee paid in such case shall be refunded in the manner provided under the Court-fees Act.” 9. The award was passed in the year 2012. The appellant had received the amount, and appropriated the amount received, pursuant to the award. Now, after eight years, appellant has approached this WA.No.568 OF 2021 -11- court stating that he was compelled to come to the settlement. Even taking for granted that the appellant was constrained to accept the amount, the award or the decree passed by the Lok Adalath, at any stretch of imagination, be permitted to be challenged at this length of time. Contentions of the appellant, cannot be countenanced. In the light of the above, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment. Writ appeal is dismissed. **Sd/-** ## **S. MANIKUMAR** **CHIEF JUSTICE** **Sd/-** **SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE** Eb ///TRUE COPY/// P. A. TO JUDGE