Girija Devi Vs Subash Ch. Agarwala

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK

W.P.(C) No.5520 of 2019

Girija Devi & others ....... Petitioners -VersusSubash Chandra Agarwala & others ....... Opp. Parties

For Petitioner : Mr. S. Mohanty,
Advocate
For Opp. Party No.2 : Mr. S. Roy,
Advocate
----------------------------
CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing & Judgment: 19.01.2024
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
S.K. Mishra, J . The Petitioners, who were the claimants before the
Court below in MAC No.230 of 1996, have challenged the order
dated 18.02.2014, vide which the Additional District Judge-
cum-4 th MACT., Keonjhar, has directed the present Opposite
Party No.2-Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs.65,000/-
(Rupees sixty five thousand) only to the Petitioners, on the
ground that the said observation is contrary to the order dated
14.12.1997 passed by the State Lok Adalat.

¶5

2. The brief background facts which led to filing of the present Writ Petition is that, the present Petitioners, being the legal heirs of the deceased namely, Hiralal Sahu, who died out of a road accident on 15.06.1996, filed MAC No.230 of 1996 before the Court below claiming therein compensation of Rs.2,00,000/. The said case was disposed of in the State Lok Adalat, Keonjhar, vide order dated 14.12.1997 in terms of a joint compromise petition. The present Petitioners (Claimant before the Court below) also filed a petition on 14.12.1997 to reduce the claim amount from Rs.2,00,000/- to Rs.65,000/-. The said order dated 14.12.1997 is extracted below:

¶6

“The Advocate for the parties filed a compromise petition through the Lok Adalat today. Heard. The petition is read over and explained to the parties in presence of their Advocates and they admit the terms to be correct. Having heard them and having gone through the document filed, I am of view that the case has been lawfully compromised. The applicant is accordingly awarded compensation of Rs.65,000/- (Rupees Sixty five Thousands) only in terms of compromise which shall form part of the award .

¶7

The Insurer shall pay the awarded amount by 12.02.1998 failing which the applicant shall be entitled to recover the same with simple interest @ 12 per cent per annum from the date of application till the date of

¶8

W.P.(C) No.5520 of 2019

¶9

Page 2 of 7

¶10

realization . The Insurer shall also make payment by issuing Account Payee cheque in favour of the applicant accordingly through this Tribunal. Adv. for the petitioner files an amendment petition to reduce the claim amount which is allowed. Rs.20,000/- for widow and Rs.10,000/- each for two sons be fixed deposit for 6 years.”

¶11

(Emphasis supplied)

¶12

3. The said order passed in MAC Nos.230/237 of 1996, as extracted above, was not complied with. The Opposite Party No.2-Insurance Company deliberately did not deposit the settled

¶13

amount within the stipulated time period. After a long gap, the advocate for the Opposite Party No.2-Insurance Company filed a petition for cancellation of the Lok Adalat order which was rejected by the Court below on 18.02.2014 with a direction to deposit the settled amount within two months from the date of the said order, which has been impugned in the present Writ Petition. The ground to challenge the said order is that, the Court below ought to have directed the Opposite Party No.2-

¶14

Insurance Company to deposit the settled amount along with interest @ 12% per annum on Rs.65,000/- from the date of application till the date of payment due to non-compliance of the Lok Adalat order dated 14.12.1997. Instead of doing so, erroneously, the said order was passed ordering there in to pay

¶15

W.P.(C) No.5520 of 2019

¶16

Page 3 of 7

¶17

a sum of Rs.65,000/- only to the Petitioners, to be the final payment in terms of the order dated 14.12.1997 passed by the State Lok Adalat.

¶18

4. On being noticed, though Opposite Party No.2-Insurance Company rendered appearance, no counter has been filed opposing the prayer made in the Writ Petition. A query being made, it is submitted at the Bar that even the said faulty order dated 18.02.2014, which is under challenge, is yet to be implemented by the Insurance Company. A further query being made, Mr. Roy, learned Counsel for the Insurance Company fairly concedes before this Court that though his client filed an application for cancellation/recalling of the said order dated 14.12.1997 passed by the State Lok Adalat, the same was rejected vide the impugned order dated 18.02.2014. The operative portion of the said order is extracted below:

¶19

“None appeared on behalf of the Opposite Parties. This case was disposed of in the Lok Adalat on conciliation that the O.P. No.2-The New India Assurance Company Ltd. will pay a sum of Rs.65000/- (Rupees sixty five thousand) only to the petitioners subject to verification of insurance policy and DL and filing of affidavit that no other claim case was filed by the claimants. The OP No.2, the new India Assurance Company Limited has not led any evidence to the effect that there was no insurance policy or DL . The

¶20

W.P.(C) No.5520 of 2019

¶21

Page 4 of 7

¶22

petitioner Girija Devi has filed an affidavit on dtd.9.1.1998 that no other case is pending filed by them out of the same case of action. The order of Lok Adalat for payment by the New India Assurance Company Ltd. a sum of Rs.65000/(Rupees sixty five thousand) only to the petitioner is made final . This is a year old case of the year, 1996. The New India Assurance Company Ltd. (O.P. No.2) is directed to pay the amount within two months hence. The case is disposed of accordingly.”

¶23

(Emphasis supplied)

¶24

5. A query being made by the Court, Mr. Roy fairly concedes

¶25

that neither the order passed by the State Lok Adalat dated 14.12.1997 nor the order dated 18.02.2014 passed in MAC No.230/237 of 1996 has been challenged by his client. However, Mr. Roy submits that 12% interest awarded by the Tribunal is much high and it should be reduced to 6%.

¶26

6. Needless to mention here that this Court, vide order dated 12.10.2023, on the prayer of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, called for the L.C.R. On being so ordered, the scanned/digitized copy of the L.C.R. has been produced before the Court, wherefrom it is ascertained that the present Opposite Party No.2-Insurane Company filed an application on 10.02.1998 to cancel the compromise order on the ground that the driving license of the accused driver of the alleged vehicle

¶27

W.P.(C) No.5520 of 2019

¶28

Page 5 of 7

¶29

was found to be fake. However, while rejecting the said application, erroneously the impugned order has been passed confining the agreed compensation amount to be Rs.65,000/-, though the Insurance Company failed to comply the said order within two months of passing of the said award in terms of the compromise petition as at Annexure-2, and a condition was imposed by the Lok Adalat vide the said order that if the Insurance Company fails to do so, interest will run @ 12% per annum from the date of application till the date of payment. The

¶30

relevant portion of the compromise petition (Annexure-2) is extracted below:

¶31

“We the above named applicant(s) and above named Insurance company have arrived at a compromise to settle the above mention claim petition at Rs.65,000/- (Rupees sixty five thousand) only in full satisfaction of the claim. No coercive or force or temptation has been made to any of the parties. We request the Hon’ble Tribunal to record the compromise and pass and award accordingly. We further state that the Insurance company above named is willing to issue a Cheque for the said amount within two months of passing of the Award, failing which interest will run at the rate of 12 (twelve) per cent per annum from the date of application till payment and that out of the Award amount, a sum of Rs.40,000/- shall be deposited in fixed deposit for 6(six) years in any Nationalised Bank out of which Rs.20,000/- for

¶32

W.P.(C) No.5520 of 2019

¶33

Page 6 of 7

¶34

widow and Rs.10,000/- each for two sons subject to condition of disposal of case U/s.140 M.V. Act, verification of policy, driving license and filing of affidavit that no other claim case filed by the claimants.”

¶35

( Emphasis supplied )

¶36

7. In view of the admitted facts on record so also the

¶37

submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that the impugned order dated 18.02.2014 is incorrect and deserves to be set aside. Accordingly, the said

¶38

order is partially set aside. The Insurance Company-Opposite Party No.2 is directed to comply the order dated 14.12.1997 passed in MAC No.230/237 of 1996 in its letter and spirit, within a period of two months from the date of production of the certified copy of this order and pay the agreed amount with interest in terms of the compromise petition.

¶39

8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands allowed and disposed of. No order as to cost.

¶40

…….….………………

¶41

S.K. MISHRA, J.

¶42

Signature Not Verified

¶43

High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Digitally Signed The 19^th January, 2024 /Prasant Signed by: PRASANT KUMAR PRADHAN Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 27-Jan-2024 11:37:13

¶44

W.P.(C) No.5520 of 2019

¶45

Page 7 of 7

Girija Devi v. Subash Ch. Agarwala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Girija Devi v. Subash Ch. Agarwala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Brundabana Sahu Vs N.I.a.Co.Ltd.

Gayatri Patel Vs Special L.a.O.,Ultra Mega Power Project-Cum-Sub-Collector,Sundargarh

Jaya Hanuman Mission Shakti Womens Self Help Group Vs State of Orissa

State Vs Mandardhar Nayak

Director,Interim Test Range Vs Kamala Kanta Sethi

Chakradhar Behera Vs Cm,Cuttack Municpal