IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION No.41417 OF 2014 (GM-AC) BETWEEN:
Kumari Nikitha.S D/o Sri S.Suresh, Aged about 19 years, R/at Flat No.A1, Malnad Mansion, Maruthinagar, Opp: SCT Engineering College, New Thippasandra Post, Bangalore-560075. ... Petitioner (By Sri Vasanthappa, Advocate) AND:
1. The Manager, Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company Ltd., No.132, Sri.Balaji Soberign Building, 2nd Floor, Brigade Road, Bangalore-560001.
2. S.P.Jamberi S/o Periyanna, R/at No.55/C, Jyothinagar, Behind Reddypalya, New Thippassandra Post, Bangalore-560075. ...Respondents (By Sri O.Mahesh, Advocate for R1, V/O/Dtd: 29.08.2016 Notice to R2 is held sufficient) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to set aside the Joint Memo compromise and decree dated 7.08.2009 vide Annexure-S and T entered into between the guardian of the petitioner with R-1 Insurance Company, in M.V.C.No.354/2009 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore and remand the matter for fresh consideration of the matter by adducing the fresh evidence documents before the Trial Court.
This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in B group this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R This writ petition is directed against the award dated 07.08.2009 (Annexure-T) passed on the basis of the joint memo filed by the parties before the Lok Adalat and the joint memo (Annexure-S).
2. The petitioner, a pillion rider, was proceeding on a TVS Scooty bearing No.KA-03/ES-9907 on Malleshpalya. At that time, the driver of the offending vehicle came from opposite direction and dashed against the petitioner’s vehicle, as a result of which, the accident occurred.
3. The rider of the two wheeler lodged a complaint before Indiranagar Police Station. Based on the said complaint, the concerned Police have investigated the case and filed charge sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle. Due to the said accident, the petitioner sustained head injury, fracture of pelvis bone, fracture of inferior pubic rami and fracture of left clavicle bone. The petitioner was initially treated and first aid was given at Chinmaya Hospital, Indiranagar, Bangalore. Thereafter, she was admitted to NIMHANS Hospital for further treatment and thereafter to Abhaya Hospital, Bangalore.
4. The petitioner was minor at that time. She was represented by her guardian Sri K.S.Jayashankar who filed a claim petition in M.V.C.No.354/2009 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, SCCH-6, Bangalore. Subsequently the matter was referred to Lok Adalat. On behalf of the petitioner, her guardian Sri K.S.Jayashankar filed a joint memo before the Lok Adalat and the matter was settled for Rs.4,40,000/-. Pursuant to the joint memo, the award was passed on 07.08.2009 as per Annexure-T and pursuant to that award, Insurance Company has paid the entire amount. Since the petitioner has suffered head injury, they have spent a lot of money for recovery and it cost more than Rs.7,00,000/-. Therefore, the petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the joint memo and the award passed by the Lok Adalat produced at Annexures-S and T respectively.
5. Sri Vasanthappa, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at the time of settling the matter the petitioner was a minor, she was represented by her guardian Sri K.S.Jayashankar and the matter was settled before the Lok Adalat for a sum of Rs.4,40,000/-. But the petitioner has spent more than a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- for the grievous injuries sustained. Hence, he submits that the joint memo and the award passed by the Lok Adalat vide Annexures-S and T be set aside and writ petition be allowed.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that since the petitioner was a minor, she was represented by her guardian and he has signed the joint memo. On the basis of the joint memo the award has been passed. But once the award is passed, the petitioner cannot maintain the writ petition before this Court.
7. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties.
8. The petitioner met with an accident on 10.07.2008, while she was proceeding as a pillion rider on a TVS Scooty bearing No.KA-03/ES-9907. Immediately, the rider of the two wheeler has lodged a complaint against the offending vehicle and the charge sheet has been filed the against the driver of the offending vehicle. The petitioner has filed a claim petition before the Tribunal in M.V.C.No.354/2009, at that time, she was aged about 15 years and she was represented by her guardian. With the consent of the parties, the matter was referred to Lok Adalat. On the basis of the joint memo filed by both the parties, the Lok Adalat has passed an award.
9. It is not the case of the petitioner that anybody has played fraud obtaining the award. It is also not the allegation that Sri K.S.Jayashankar, who was representing the petitioner was not interested in the case. In fact the amount which is awarded, has been utilized for the treatment of the petitioner. Hence, there is no allegation of fraud and this writ petition cannot be entertained by challenging the award passed by the Lok Adalat.
10. In the case of Bhargavi Construction & Another V/s. Kothakapu Muthyam Reddy & Others reported in AIR 2017 SC 4428., the Supreme Court has held as follows:
“ 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 notice, in such a situation, the High Court ought to have heard and disposed of the appeal on merits.”
11. In view of the reasons stated above, there is no allegation or fraud played. Hence, the writ petition is not maintainable and the same is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE GJM