Case Note & Summary
A minor child and her paternal grandmother (as next friend) approached the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging a Lok Adalat award and the closure of a motor accident claim petition. The dispute arose from a road traffic accident on 09-03-2019 in which Bhairu Shinde, father of the minor child, died. The minor’s maternal grandmother (first respondent) had filed a claim petition (M.V.C. No.1567/2020) seeking compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-. While another claim petition (M.V.C. No.2324/2019) filed by the paternal grandmother on behalf of the minor was pending, the first respondent entered into a compromise with the insurers before the Lok Adalat for Rs.12,00,000/- as full and final settlement. The Lok Adalat passed an award on 14-08-2021, and the other claim petition was closed on 25-08-2021. The petitioners contended that the first respondent was not the guardian of the minor, had no authority to file the claim or enter into a compromise, and that the compensation was grossly inadequate and collusively arrived at. The first respondent argued that she was the maternal grandmother actually caring for the minor, that the deceased had been adopted and the paternal grandmother was not a legal heir, and that the Lok Adalat compromise was final. The High Court framed two issues: whether the Lok Adalat award could be set aside, and whether the compensation payable to the minor needed modification. After hearing counsel, the court examined the legal position that a Lok Adalat award can be challenged in a writ petition only on limited grounds such as fraud. The court took note of the argument that the first respondent lacked authority to represent the minor and held that a compromise entered into by a person not lawfully acting as guardian is void. Consequently, the court set aside the Lok Adalat award dated 14-08-2021 in M.V.C. No.1567/2020 and the order of closure dated 25-08-2021 in M.V.C. No.2324/2019, and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication of compensation on merits, directing the tribunal to determine the compensation in accordance with law considering the notional income and other applicable principles.
Headnote
A) Lok Adalat – Award – Challenge – Grounds – Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, Sections 19, 20 – Constitution of India, Articles 226, 227 – Limited grounds of fraud or lack of consent are available to set aside Lok Adalat award under writ jurisdiction; not by appeal. Held that where award is vitiated by want of authority of the person entering into compromise on behalf of minor, writ is maintainable (Paras 8-9, 9.1). B) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Claim Petition – Minor’s representation – Guardian – The maternal grandmother who was not appointed as guardian by court and whose authority was contested could not validly institute claim petition or enter into compromise on behalf of the minor; such compromise and award are void and liable to be set aside (Paras 5-7). C) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Compensation – Determination – Notional income – Where deceased was a driver and agriculturist, the compensation must be computed as per applicable notional income and multiplier principles; a compromise for lower amount without adjudication is not in the interest of the minor dependant and cannot be sustained (Paras 5, 7).
Issue of Consideration
(i) Whether the award of the Lok Adalat requires to be set aside? (ii) Whether the compensation to be payable to the 1st petitioner, minor child, is to be modified in accordance with law?
Law Points
- Lok Adalat award can be challenged via writ petition on limited grounds like fraud
- claim petition filed by person not acting as legal guardian of minor is not maintainable
- compromise without proper representation of minor is void
- compensation must be determined as per motor accident law
- notional income must be assessed on legal principles.
