IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JANUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION No.37832/2011 (GM-AC) BETWEEN:
M/S.BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED NO.31, T B R TOWERS BANGALORE STOCK EXCHANGE NEW MISSION ROAD BANGALORE-560002 (REP BY SENIOR MANAGER-LEGAL SRI CH. SHANKARAIAH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS) (BY SRI. E I SANMATHI, ADV.) AND 1. SMT MEENAKSHAMMA W/O LATE KALLESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS BHOLIRE VILLAGE & POST UTTARAHALLI HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, SINCE DEAD REPRESENTED BY SMT. KANAKAMMA D/O MEENAKSHAMMA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/A BHOLIRE VILLAGE & POST ... PETITIONER UTTARAHALLI HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK 2. MR VIJAYKUMAR NO.241, 21ST BLOCK SLIG 5TH PHASE, NEW TOWN NEAR NEHAPRAKASH HOSPITAL BANGALORE-560064.
(BY SRI. B V THILAK, ADV. FOR R1 ... RESPONDENTS R-2 – NOTICE DISPENSED WITH V/O DT. 31.5.2016) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE AWARD DT.17.8.10, PASSED BY THE DIST. LEGAL SERVICES, AUTHORITY, BANGALORE URBAN, LOKADALATH, BANGALORE URBAN [MOTOR VEHICLES CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE IN MVC.NO.5056/09, PRODUCED AS ANN-B.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R This writ petition is filed directing against the award dated 17.8.2010 passed by the District Legal Services Authority, Bangalore Urban, Lok Adalath, Bangalore Urban (Motor Vehicles Claims Tribunal, Bangalore) in MVC No.5056/2009 produced at Annexure-B.
2. Brief facts of the case:
Smt. Meenakshamma sustained grievous injuries in an accident occurred on 22.2.2009. After recovering from the injuries, she filed the claim petition before the Tribunal in MVC No.5056/2009. After service of notice to the respondents, respondent No.1 appeared before the Tribunal and filed written statement. Later with the consent of both the parties, the matter was referred to Lok Adalath. On 16.8.2010, the parties filed joint memo as per Annexure-A and settled the matter for a sum of Rs.1,30,000/-. Pursuant to the joint memo, the Lok Adalath passed an award dated 17.8.2010 as per Annexure-B. Since the claimant, Smt. Meenakshamma died on 23.3.2010, the learned counsel for the claimant filed an application dated 28.9.2019 before the Tribunal as per Annexure-C for brining the legal representative of claimant on record. On perusing the death certificate produced as per Annexure-D, the Tribunal suspected that there is overwriting in the death certificate in respect of the month of the death of the claimant, Smt. Meenakshamma and called for report from the concerned Village Accountant. As per the report of the Village Accountant produced at Annexure-E, it is stated that the date of death of Smt. Meenakshamma is 23.3.2010 and not 23.8.2010. The learned counsel for the claimant filed two memos dated 11.2.2011. One memo for withdrawing the legal representative application and another memo stating that the amount deposited by the Insurance Company may be refunded to the Insurance Company as the claimant Smt. Meenakshamma is no more. The Insurance Company had raised objection and filed a memo praying to direct the office to release/refund the amount deposited by the Insurance Company. The Tribunal by order dated 26.2.2011 has rejected both the memos filed by the learned counsel for the claimant. It has held that it has no jurisdiction to order for refund of the amount deposited by the Insurance Company, however, reserved liberty to the Insurance Company to move the Court at a later stage. Hence, the petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the award dated 17.8.2010 passed by the Lok Adalath.
3. Mr.E.I.Sanmathi, the learned counsel for the petitioner placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhargavi Constructions and Ors. Vs. Kothakapu Muthyam Reddy and Ors. [AIR 2017 SC 4428] contends that the writ petition is maintainable against the award passed by the Lok Adalath, if it is obtained by fraud. He further contended that the joint memo was filed on 16.8.2010. In the joint memo, it was shown that the claimant, Smt.Meenakshamma has signed the joint memo. As per the death certificate, the claimant, Smt.Meenakshamma died on 23.3.2010. The legal representative of the claimant has played fraud by forging the month of death of the claimant in order to receive the compensation. He further contended that the legal representative has filed the memo before the Tribunal stating that the amount deposited by the Insurance Company may be refunded as the claimant is no more. Since the party has played fraud in obtaining the award before the Lok Adalath, the award passed by the Lok Adalath is unsustainable.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the writ papers.
5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhargavi Constructions (supra), in paragraphs 26, 27 and 28 has held as follows:
26. This is what Their Lordships held in Para 12:
“12. It is true that where an award is made by the Lok Adalat in terms of a settlement arrived at between the parties (which is duly signed by parties and annexed to the award of the Lok Adalat), it becomes final and binding on the parties to the settlement and becomes executable as if it is a decree of a civil court, and no appeal lies against it to any court. If any party wants to challenge such an award based on settlement, it can be done only by filing a petition under Article 226 and/or Article 227 of the Constitution, that too on very limited grounds. But where no compromise or settlement is signed by the parties and the order of the Lok Adalat does not refer to any settlement, but directs the respondent to either make payment if it agrees to the order, or approach the High Court for disposal of appeal on merits, if it does not agree, is not an award of the Lok Adalat. The question of challenging such an order in a petition under Article 227 does not arise. As already noticed, in such a situation, the High Court ought to have heard and disposed of the appeal on merits.”
27. In our considered view, the aforesaid law laid down by this Court is binding on all the Courts in the country by virtue of mandate of Article 141 of the Constitution. This Court, in no uncertain terms, has laid down that challenge to the award of Lok Adalat can be done only by filing a writ petition under Article 226 and/or Article 227 of the Constitution of India in the High Court and that too on very limited grounds.
28. In the light of clear pronouncement of the law by this Court, we are of the opinion that the only remedy available to the aggrieved person(respondents herein/plaintiffs) was to file a writ petition under Article 226 and/or 227 of the Constitution of India in the High Court for challenging the award dated 22.08.2007 passed by the Lok Adalat. It was then for the writ Court to decide as to whether any ground was made out by the writ petitioners for quashing the award and, if so, whether those grounds are sufficient for its quashing.
6. In view of the above, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is maintainable since the legal representative of the claimant have obtained the award by playing fraud. It is not in dispute that Smt. Meenakshamma met with an accident on 22.2.2009 and suffered grievous injuries. The joint memo was filed on 16.8.2010. As on 16.8.2010, the claimant Smt. Meenakshamma was no more. As per the death certificate produced at Annexure-F, the date of death of Smt. Meenakshamma is 23.3.2010. The legal representative of deceased Smt. Meenakshamma has played fraud by obtaining the award before the Lok Adalath. Since the legal representative of the claimant has played fraud before the Lok Adalath by forging the date of death in the death certificate of the claimant, the award passed by the Lok Adalath dated 17.8.2010 produced at Annexure-B is unsustainable.
7. Hence, the following order is passed:
ORDER a) Petition is allowed.
b) Award dated 17.8.2010 passed by the District Legal Services Authority, Bangalore Urban, Lok Adalath, Bangalore Urban (Motor Vehicles Claims Tribunal, Bangalore) in MVC No.5056/2009 produced at Annexure-B, is set aside.
c) MVC No.5056/2009 is restored. The Tribunal is directed to consider the matter in accordance with law.
d) The amount deposited by the Insurance Company is ordered to be kept in fixed deposit in any nationalized bank till MVC No.5056/2009 is decided by the Tribunal.
e) Since the matter is of the year 2009, the Tribunal is directed to dispose of the matter within an outer limit of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Parties to appear before the Tribunal on 22.01.2019 at 11.00 a.m.
Sd/- JUDGE DM