Case Note & Summary
The New India Assurance Company Limited filed a first appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the judgment and order dated 22.02.2009 passed by the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Khamgaon in Claim Petition No. 88 of 2008. The claimants, being the widow and children of the deceased Sukhdeo Ingle, had sought compensation for his death in a motor vehicle accident. The Tribunal had passed an award based on a settlement allegedly arrived at before the Lok Nyayalaya held on 25.02.2009. The insurance company contended that there was no valid settlement because the pursis (terms of settlement) was not signed by any officer of the company, and the company had not authorized any person to enter into a settlement. The counsel for the respondents fairly conceded that the appellant was not duly represented at the time of the settlement. The court, considering the facts and circumstances and the concession, held that the impugned judgment and order was vitiated and deserved to be quashed and set aside. The matter was remanded to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Khamgaon to decide the claim petition afresh after giving both parties an opportunity to lead evidence. The appeal was allowed accordingly.
Headnote
A) Motor Accident Claims - Lok Adalat Settlement - Validity of Settlement - Requirement of Authorization - The appellant insurance company challenged the award passed by the MACT based on a settlement before the Lok Nyayalaya, contending that the pursis was not signed by its officer and no person was authorized to settle. The respondent conceded that the appellant was not duly represented. Held that the impugned judgment and order dated 22.02.2009 is quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded to the MACT for fresh decision after giving both parties an opportunity to lead evidence. (Paras 4-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the impugned judgment and order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal based on a settlement before the Lok Nyayalaya is valid when the appellant insurance company was not duly represented and had not authorized any person to settle the claim.
Final Decision
The judgment and order dated 22.02.2009 is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Khamgaon to decide the claim petition afresh after giving both parties an opportunity to lead evidence.
Law Points
- Lok Adalat settlement requires valid authorization
- Remand for fresh hearing
- Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
Case Details
2010 LawText (BOM) (01) 150
First Appeal No. 887 of 2009
Shri. A. J. Pophaly (for appellant), Smt. M. P. Kshirsagar (for respondents)
The New India Assurance Company Limited
Smt. Sunanda wd/o Sukhdeo Ingle and others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
First appeal against judgment and order of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarding compensation based on a settlement before Lok Nyayalaya.
Remedy Sought
Appellant insurance company sought quashing of the impugned judgment and order and remand for fresh adjudication.
Filing Reason
Appellant contended that there was no valid settlement as the pursis was not signed by its officer and no person was authorized to settle.
Previous Decisions
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Khamgaon passed the impugned judgment and order dated 22.02.2009 in Claim Petition No. 88 of 2008.
Issues
Whether the settlement before the Lok Nyayalaya was valid when the appellant insurance company was not duly represented and had not authorized any person to settle.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant: The pursis was not signed by the officer of the appellant; the appellant had not authorized any person to arrive at a settlement; hence the impugned judgment is vitiated.
Respondent: Conceded that the appellant was not duly represented at the settlement and had no objection to quashing and remanding the matter.
Ratio Decidendi
A settlement before a Lok Nyayalaya is not binding on a party if that party was not duly represented and had not authorized any person to enter into the settlement. In such circumstances, the award based on such settlement is vitiated and must be set aside, and the matter remanded for fresh adjudication.
Judgment Excerpts
The main challenge to the impugned judgment and order is that, there was no settlement arrived at before the Loknyayalaya held on 25.02.2009 arrived at between the appellant and the respondents in respect of the claim put forward by the respondents.
Learned counsel Smt Kshirsagar who appears on behalf of the respondents fairly concedes that the appellants were not duly represented in the settlement and as such submits that she has no objection if the impugned judgment and order dated 22.02.2009 is quashed and set aside and the matter be remanded back to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Khamgaon to decide the claim petition afresh after giving both the parties an opportunity to lead evidence.
Procedural History
The respondents filed Claim Petition No. 88 of 2008 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Khamgaon seeking compensation for the death of Sukhdeo Ingle. The Tribunal passed an award on 22.02.2009 based on a settlement before the Lok Nyayalaya held on 25.02.2009. The appellant insurance company filed First Appeal No. 887 of 2009 before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, challenging the award. The appeal was admitted and heard with consent of parties, and the impugned judgment was quashed and set aside, with the matter remanded for fresh adjudication.
Acts & Sections
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: Section 173
