THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI Between:
WRIT PETITION No.11624 OF 2003 Dated: 23.01.2014 The United India Insurance Company Ltd., Rep.by its Regional Manager … Petitioner And N.Lakshamma, W/o.Shekar and five others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI WRIT PETITION No.11624 OF 2003 ORDER:
Heard Smt.S.A.V.Ratnam, learned counsel representing Sri K.Kishore Kumar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner on record and Sri Yellabandi Ramathirdha, learned counsel for the respondents.
In the present writ petition, the award passed by the Lok Adalath, Nalgonda dated 15.09.2001 in O.P.No.1009 of 1999 is assailed. The facts which are essential for disposal of the present writ petition are as follows:
Respondents 1 to 5 filed O.P.No.1009 of 1999 on the file of I Additional District Judge-cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nalgonda, claiming compensation for the death of one Mr.Sekhar, husband of the first respondent herein. The said claim was referred to the Lok Adalath, Nalgonda and the Lok Adalath, Nalgonda passed award under Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 awarding a total sum of Rs.2,05,000/- in favour of the respondents herein. The said award was signed by the parties and their respective counsels also. In the present writ petition, the grievance of the petitioner herein is that the respondents initially claimed Rs.3,00,000/- by way of compensation and along with O.P., they filed I.A.No.1975 of 1999 seeking exemption for payment of court fee and the Tribunal dismissed the same. Thereafter, the respondents filed I.A.No.2626 of 1999 praying the Court to reduce the compensation amount to Rs.1,50,000/- from Rs.3,00,000/- and permit them to pay the court fee on Rs.1,50,000/- and the said petition was allowed. It is the contention of the petitioner herein that in the said I.A., no notice was given to the petitioner herein as such the petitioner was under the impression that the claimants claimed Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation. After reference to the Lok Adalath, award was passed on 15.09.2009 for Rs.2,05,000/- even though the compensation amount was reduced to Rs.1,50,000/- at the instance of the respondents. It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the said action on the part of the respondents would amount to misrepresentation of fact. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that pursuant to the award, respondents 1 to 5 herein received a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- out of Rs.2,05,000/- deposited by the petitioner herein. In the present writ petition, the claim of the respondents 1 to 5 is under a beneficial legislation intended for the benefit of the dependants of the victims of the accidents. It is significant to note that the award passed by the Lok Adalath was signed by a responsible officer of the petitioner- company. In the said award, the Lok Adalath granted compensation of Rs.2,05,000/-. Therefore, it is not open for the petitioner herein to contend that there was misrepresentation on behalf of the respondents 1 to 5. It is relevant to note at this juncture that in the case of
[1]
NAGAPPA v. GURUDAYAL SINGH the Honourable Supreme Court
held that Section 168 empowers the claims Tribunal to make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just and only requirement for determining the compensation is that it must be just. As such, there is no other limitation or restriction on its power for awarding just compensation. The Honourable Supreme Court further held in the said judgment that it is for the Tribunal to determine just compensation from the evidence which is brought on record despite the fact that the claimant has not precisely stated the amount of damages of compensation which he is entitled to and if evidence on record justifies passing of such award, the claim cannot be rejected solely on the ground that claimant has restricted the claim.
For the aforesaid reasons and having regard to the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above said judgment and taking into consideration the nature of controversy, this Court is not inclined to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI 23.01.2014 Rns THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI WRIT PETITION No.11624 OF 2008 23.01.2014 Rns
[1] 2003(1) ALD 1 (SC)