Sri Harikrishna C S v. Icici Lombard General

Karnataka HC24 Oct 2025WP/6424/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Lok Adalat award set aside; conflict between two MFAs (MFA No.5515/2017 and MFA No.6572/2019) against the same MVC No.2038/2014 award dated 28.02.2017; certiorari under Articles 226 and 227 Constitution of India; remand to MACT Tribunal per Single Judge order dated 13.03.2020; reference to Karnataka State Bar Council against responsible advocate; ICICI Lombard General Insurance; claimant Harikrishna C S; Karnataka High Court writ petition GM-RES 2025.

What did the court decide?

Impugned Lok Adalat conciliation order/award dated 14.07.2020 in MFA No.6572/2019 (MV) set aside; parties directed to pursue their case before the Tribunal as per the Single Judge's judgment and order dated 13.03.2020 in MFA No.5515/2017; matter referred to the Karnataka State Bar Council for action against the responsible advocate; writ petition disposed of.

Sri Harikrishna C S Vs Icici Lombard General — Company and Corporate | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶46

Issue for consideration

Whether the Lok Adalat order dated 14.07.2020 in MFA No.6572/2019 (MV) can be sustained when the learned Single Judge had already, on 13.03.2020 in MFA No.5515/2017, set aside the very same judgment and award dated 28.02.2017 and remanded the matter to the Tribunal.

¶¶39

Court's answer

The order passed by the Lok Adalat dated 14.07.2020 cannot be sustained as it is in conflict with the verdict of the learned Single Judge dated 13.03.2020 in MFA No.5515/2017; accordingly, the Lok Adalat order is set aside.

¶¶39

Ratio / Principle

The parties are directed to pursue their case before the Tribunal as directed by the learned Single Judge in the judgment and order dated 13.03.2020 passed in MFA No.5515/2017.

¶¶39

Key takeaways

Observing it to be a serious matter that, in respect of the same award, two appeals came to be filed on behalf of the claimant, the court referred the matter to the Karnataka State Bar Council to take appropriate action against the responsible advocate.ratio¶¶41

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka (per D K Singh, J.; Rajesh Rai K, J.) set aside a Lok Adalat award dated 14.07.2020 passed in MFA No.6572/2019 (MV), which recorded full and final settlement of a motor accident claim (arising from the judgment and award dated 28.02.2017 in MVC No.2038/2014, MACT Bengaluru) with an additional lump sum of Rs.60,000/- from ICICI Lombard. The award could not stand because, on the very same Tribunal award, the learned Single Judge had already allowed the claimant's other appeal, MFA No.5515/2017, by judgment dated 13.03.2020, setting aside the award and remanding the matter to the Tribunal. Noting that two appeals against the same award had been filed on behalf of the claimant by two different advocates, the Bench referred the conduct of the responsible advocate to the Karnataka State Bar Council for appropriate action. Parties were directed to pursue their case before the Tribunal; writ petition under Articles 226/227 disposed of.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:42193-DB WP No. 6424 of 2023

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K WRIT PETITION NO. 6424 OF 2023 (GM-RES)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI HARIKRISHNA C S S/O C. VENKATARAMANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, PRESENTLY R/AT #13-16, SREERANGARAJULA PALLI VILLAGE AND POST, PARIGI MANDAL, PENUKONDA TALUK, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH STATE-515 212.

¶11

Digitally signed by VASANTHA KUMARY B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

ERSTWHILE R/AT C/O RAMESH P, NO.40, 5TH MAIN, 2ND FLOOR, BHUVANESHWARINAGAR, MAGADI ROAD, NEAR PRASANNA THEATRE, BANGALORE-560 023.

¶13

…PETITIONER

¶14

(BY SRI ANJANEYA A B, ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,

¶17

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:42193-DB WP No. 6424 of 2023

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

BY ITS MANAGER, NO.89, SVR COMPLEX, 2ND FLOOR, NEAR AYYAPPA TEMPLE, HOSUR MAIN ROAD, MADIWALA, BANGALORE - 560 068, (REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956).

¶20

M/S RINKU COMMERCIAL CARRIER PVT LTD., BY ITS MANAGER, NO.58/12A, NIT FARIDABAD HARYANA, PIN: 121001, (RC OWNER OF LORRY BEARING REG.NO.HR-38-P-5918), (REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956).

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI PRADEEP B, ADVOCATE FOR R-1)

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226

¶24

AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING THE IMPUGNED CONCILIATION ORDER AND LOK-ADALATH AWARD DATED 14/07/2020 PASSED IN MFA NO.6572/2019 (MV) VIDE ANNEXURES-O AND P UNDER THE AFORESAID GROUNDS.

¶25

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,

¶26

ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶27

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC:42193-DB WP No. 6424 of 2023

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

¶31

ORAL ORDER

¶32

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)

¶33

The present writ petition has been filed impugning the order dated 14.07.2020 passed by the Lok Adalat in MFA No.6572/2019 (MV) (Lok Adalat No.565/2020).

¶34

It appears that two advocates had filed two MFAs against the same judgment and award dated 28.02.2017 passed in MVC No.2038/2014 on the file of the XXI Additional Small Causes Judge and XX ACMM and Member, MACT, Bengaluru. MFA No.5515/2017 was filed by Mr. Anjaneya A.B. whereas, MFA No.6572/2019 was filed by Mr. Vijay Kumar .T.

¶35

In MFA No.5515/2017, the learned Single Judge, vide judgment and order dated 13.03.2020, allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and award dated 28.02.2017 and remanded the matter back to the Tribunal for decision in accordance with law, expeditiously. However, MFA No.6572/2019 was referred to the Lok Adalat and the Lok

¶36

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:42193-DB WP No. 6424 of 2023

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

Adalat, vide order dated 14.07.2020, observed that the appellant had agreed to receive and respondent No.1-Insurance Company had agreed to pay a lump sum amount of Rs.60,000/- in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal in full and final settlement of the claim.

¶39

The order passed by the Lok Adalat cannot be sustained as it is in conflict with the verdict given by the learned Single Judge in the judgment dated 13.03.2020 passed in MFA No.5515/2017. Therefore, we set aside the order 14.07.2020 passed by the Lok Adalat. The parties are directed to pursue their case before the Tribunal as directed by the learned Single Judge in the judgment and order dated 13.03.2020 passed in MFA No.5515/2017.

¶40

We must observe that it is a serious matter as, in respect of the same award, two appeals came to be filed on behalf of the claimant and therefore, the Karnataka State Bar Council must look into the matter and take appropriate action against the responsible advocate.

¶41

The matter is referred to the Karnataka State Bar Council for appropriate action.

¶42

¶43

NC: 2025:KHC:42193-DB WP No. 6424 of 2023

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

With the above observations, the writ petition stands

¶46

disposed of.

¶47