AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.S. Bopanna, J.—The issue involved in both these petitions is the same inasmuch as the identity of the respondent to be the son of the deceased in both these cases arises for consideration. In that view, these petitions are taken up together and disposed of by this common order.
The respondent herein had filed claim petitions in MVC Nos. 30 and 31 of 2004 During the pendency of the same before the Tribunal, they had been referred to Lok Adalat and in the proceeding held on 14th July, 2004, the compromise reported was re corded and they were disposed of granting compensation as indicated therein.
The petitioner insurance company or both these petitions contend that the respondent has played fraud in securing the compensation inasmuch as the subsequent investigation carried out by the insurance company would disclose that the deceased in both the cases being the husband and wife had not left behind any legal heirs much less any dependents. It is also the case of the insurance company that the parents of the claim ant are alive and as such, he could not have made any claim by filing these petitions. It is in that view, the insurance company had filed miscellaneous petitions in Civil Misc. Nos. 58 and 59 of 2004 seeking recall of the compromise award.
The said petitions were taken up together. The insurance company had examined two witnesses as P.Ws-1 and 2 and also produced documents at Exs. P-2 and 12. The respondent herein had examined himself as RW-1, but no documents were relied upon by him. The Court below, after taking note of the evidence tendered before it, has made a detailed consideration, to come to the conclusion that the case as put forth by the petitioner insurance company cannot be accepted inasmuch as, the evidence as tendered was insufficient since the police officers, who had investigated this aspect of the matter, had not been examined before it. However, ultimately, the Court below has arrived at the conclusion that once the award is passed by way of compromise before the Lok Adalat, the same cannot be assailed before the same court and as such, the case as put forth by the insurance company cannot be accepted, to set aside the compromise award. It is against the said order dated 31st January, 2009, the instant petitions are filed.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the petition papers.
Firstly, when the Court below was of the opinion that in a matter of compromise before the Lok Adalat, the same Court could not consider the validity or otherwise of the compromise and in that regard, had also referred to the decision relied therein, the appropriate course for the Court below should have been to dispose of the petitions as not maintainable, without adverting to merits of the rival contentions.
Even otherwise, a perusal of the order would disclose that the Court below has taken a narrow view of the matter. I am of the said opinion for the reason that when a miscellaneous petition seeking recall was filed before the Court below alleging fraud in securing the award, the evidence which was required to be tendered at that stage was only to prima facie establish that contention before the Court below to point out that if the award is set aside and the claim petition is restored, there is sufficient evidence which could be placed before the Tribunal for consideration. In that regard, though only P.Ws-1 and 2 were examined, the documents produced at Exs. P-1 to 12 will indicate the manner in which the subsequent investigation has been made.
In a matter of the present nature, when the complaint of the petitioner insurance company was that the respondent has indulged in wangling an award from the Tribunal by falsely representing himself as a legal heir of the deceased in the instant case and when sufficient prima facie material was placed before the Court below to indicate that an investigation had been carried out, the same should have been noticed by the Court below and an opportunity should have been granted to produce the said material before the Tribunal in the main proceedings and tender appropriate evidence. Therefore, in a matter of the present nature, the Court below was not justified in coming to the conclusion that the police officers had not been examined and therefore, the allegation had not been proved.
That apart, even with regard to the voter�s list that has been marked by the insurance company to contend that the claimant was not the legal heir of the deceased, the Court below has rejected the same by assuming that there is possibility that no other name had been entered by mistake in the voter�s list. Such a conclusion in a matter of the present nature where compensation by way of public money is being granted and the compromise was recorded before the Lok Adalat, the dismissal of the petition by the Court below was not justified. In any event, if the award is set aside and the claim petition in MVC Nos. 30 of 2004 and 31 of 2004 are restored to the file of the Tribunal, the respondent would have an opportunity to establish his identity before the Tribunal to show that he is actually the legal heir of the deceased and if such evidence is tendered, in any event, the consideration would be made by the Tribunal and he would still be entitled.
Similarly, the insurance company while putting forth their evidence before the Tribunal will have the opportunity of proving their case in accordance with law by examining the appropriate witnesses to rebut the claim of the petitioner in the claim petition.
Therefore, taking all these aspects into consideration, the order dated 31st January, 2009 passed in Civil Misc. Nos. 58 and 59 of 2004 as also the compromise awards in MVC Nos. 30 and 31 of 2004 dated 14th July, 2004 are set aside.
The claim petitions in MVC Nos. 30 and 31 of 2004 are restored to the file of the Tribunal.
The parties shall now appear before the Tribunal on 18th July, 2016 as the first date for appearance without issue of notice therein.
The MACT shall thereupon provide opportunity to the parties and consider the claim petition on its merits and in accordance with law. All contentions in that regard are left open.
The Writ Petitions are accordingly dis-posed of.