New India Assurance Company Limited vs Santosh Sahu And Ors

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J

Heard on the office objection as to maintainability of writ petition filed against award of National Lok Adalat of this Court on 9-3-2019.

The petitioner Insurance Company calls in question legality, validity and correctness of the award passed by the National Lok Adalat (High Court)

held on 9-3-2019 by which on account of compromise arrived into between the claimants and the petitioner herein, an additional sum of ₹ 2,10,000/- by

way of compensation, has been awarded.

Mrs. Chitra Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner Insurance Company, would submit that the writ petition as framed and filed questioning

the award passed by the National Lok Adalat is maintainable and the office objection deserves to be overruled in view of the decision rendered by the

Supreme Court in the matter of State of Punjab and another v. Jalour Singh and others 2008 AIR SCW 1196.

I have considered the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner and went through the record with utmost circumspection.

The question would be, whether a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India would be maintainable questioning the award passed in

favour of the claimants by the National Lok Adalat of this Court, on the basis of compromise?

The question came up for consideration in Jalour Singh's case (supra) in which Their Lordships while considering Section 20 of the Legal Services

Authorities Act, 1987 held that the Lok Adalats have no adjudicatory or judicial function, its role is to guide and persuade parties to reach at a

compromise or settlement and award passed by Lok Adalat is not appealable and it can only be challenged by filing petition under Article 226 or 227

of the Constitution of India. It has been observed in paragraphs 12, 13 and 14 as under: -

It is true that where an award is made by 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 the travails continued. In view of the order dated 11-9-2002 passed by the learned single Judge holding that a petition under Article 227 has to

be filed to challenge the order of the Lok Adalat, the appellants filed a petition under Article 227. But the said petition was dismissed by another single

Judge on the ground that the order of Lok Adalat passed on 3-8-2001 had attained finality as the objections to it were dismissed on 11-9-2002 and a

petition under Article 227 was not maintainable to challenge the order of Lok Adalat. He failed to notice that the order dated 3-8- 2001 was neither a

decision nor had it attained finality. He also failed to notice that the objections to the order were not rejected by the High Court after consideration on

merits. He also overlooked the fact that the learned Judge who decided the appellants' application, had directed that the order of the Lok Adalat

should be challenged by filing a petition under Article 227. Be that as it may.

Thus we find that the Lok Adalat exercised a power/ jurisdiction not vested in it. On the other hand, the High Court twice refused to exercise the

jurisdiction vested in it, thereby denying justice and driving the appellants to this Court. In this process, a simple appeal by the legal heirs of the

deceased for enhancement of compensation, has been tossed around and is pending for more than eight years, putting them to avoidable expense and

harassment.

We therefore allow this appeal and quash the order dated 3-8-2001 of the Lok Adalat as also set aside the orders dated 11-9-2002 and 26-2-2003

of the High Court. As a consequence, the High Court shall hear and dispose of FAO No. 1549/1999 which continues to be pending on its record, on

merits in accordance with law. The High Court is requested to dispose of the appeal expeditiously. Parties to bear their respective costs.

In view of the aforesaid pronouncement, it is quite vivid that the award passed by the National Lok Adalat (High Court) can be assailed by way of

a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and in view of the aforesaid authoritative pronouncement by the Supreme Court, the office

objection is overruled and the matter is directed to be listed for admission before the appropriate Bench.