Smt. Gangi and others vs IInd Additional District and Sessions Judge/Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Hamirpur and others

S.K. Phaujdar, J.—Heard both the parties.

The petitioner had made an application under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act for compensation for the death of her husband in a motor accident and the respondent No. 5 was the insurer who was noticed in the proceeding. Upon a chance of compromise between the parties, the matter was sent to the Lok Adalat and the parties were required to appear on 24.10.1999 before the Lok Adalat. The petitioner was absent on that date while the representative of the insurer was present. The Lok Adalat recorded an order in the following language :

"Claim petition is dismissed. Costs on parties."

The petitioner thereafter made an application to the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal (IInd Addl. District Judge, Hamirpur) on 28.10.1999 and the Tribunal recorded an order as follows :

"Heard the learned counsel. The case was dismissed in Lok Adalat and absence of applicant was deliberate. Therefore, application is summarily rejected."

It is unfortunate that both the Courts, Lok Adalat and the MAC Tribunal, had erred on the point of law. Lok Adalat was not supposed to decide an adversary proceeding. Cognizance can be taken by the Lok Adalat u/s 20 upon a reference under sub-section (5) of Section 19 for the purpose of determining and arriving at a compromise between the parties of a dispute and clause 5 of Section 20 empowers the Lok Adalat to return the records of the case to the Court in case no compromise or settlement could be arrived at between the parties. The law never permitted a Lok Adalat to dismiss a claim petition. The best that he could have done was to return the records to the concerned Court on failure of compromise or settlement. Thus, the order of dismissal of the petition was patently wrong.

The concerned Tribunal had committed the mistake by taking the dismissal order of the Lok Adalat as a final one. He should have read the order as one u/s 20(5) for return of the records to him and he should not have taken any cognizance of the dismissal order of the Lok Adalat as it was honest in the eye of law. Thus the order of the Tribunal dated 28.10.99 is also not a legal one.

Both the aforesaid impugned orders are quashed. The concerned claim case No. 76 of 1998 shall proceed before the concerned Tribunal according to law. The parties who are before me are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 5.1.2000 to take further orders from him.

With the aforesaid directions, the present writ petition stands allowed.