Khema Ram vs Laxman Ram and Others

Arun Bhansali, J.—This appeal is indicated as barred by 161 days. An application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed to indicate that the compromise was arrived at before the Lok Adalat, when the claimant-appellant was not present and he had no knowledge of passing of the award and he came to know of the same in the month of March, 2012 only and the appeal has thereafter been filed on 3.4.2012.

A reply to the application has been filed by the respondents No. 1 and 2 i.e. owner and driver of the vehicle and a specific objection about maintainability of the appeal has been raised. It has also been submitted that the memo of appeal is wholly silent about any action having been taken by the appellant qua the compromise arrived at, which was allegedly without his instructions and at his back.

It is further submitted that no reason whatsoever has been indicated in the application so as to condone the delay and, therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed as not maintainable and /or barred by limitation.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that a bare perusal of the award from Lok Adalat clearly indicates that the counsel has signed at the place meant for claimant as well as the counsel and the claimant was not aware of passing of the award and it is only in March, 2012 that he became aware of passing of the award and then only he has collected the amount so awarded and came to know about passing of the award on compromise by Lok Adalat, to which he had not consented. It was frankly considered by the learned counsel for the appellant that despite the counsel having entered into the compromise without instructions from the appellant, no action under the Advocate''s Act has been initiated against the counsel and no proceedings for recalling of the award has been initiated before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and directly this appeal has been preferred on the grounds indicated here-in-before.

Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the counsel representing the claimant is well within his authority as granted to him through execution of Vakalatnama, to enter into compromise. Admittedly, no proceedings have been initiated against the counsel in this regard and further the petitioner even failed to place on record any communication addressed to the counsel seeking to question the compromise entered into.

It is further submitted that if against the compromise award on such grounds, the appeal is held maintainable, the same would prejudice the respondents, who have without contesting the claim have entered into compromise to buy peace.

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

Admittedly, the appellant has failed to place on record any material so as to disown the action of the counsel appearing on his behalf before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, whereby the application for compensation filed by him was compromised before the Lok Adalat. The appellant has also received the amount of compensation awarded to him under the compromise award. If the appellant was aggrieved by passing of the said award, in the first instance, he should have refused to accept the award and should have immediately moved the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal with an appropriate application. Failure on his part to do so clearly indicates that the filing of the present appeal is merely an after thought and trying to seek advantage of the fact that the compromise was entered under the signatures of the counsel.

In view of the fact that the award sought to be impugned had been passed on compromise before the Lok Adalat, the present appeal itself is not maintainable.

In that view of the matter, the application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act is also not maintainable. Consequently, the appeal as well as application u/s. 5 of the Limitation Act is dismissed as not maintainable.