Dismissed

National Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Jharna Sarkar and Anr.

Tripura HC3 Nov 2017CRP/91/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this civil revision under Art. 227, the High Court of Tripura dismissed the insurer's challenge to a Special Lok Adalat award. The court held that acceptance of a settlement binds the parties, and challenges via Art. 227 are limited to fraud or misrepresentation, not violations of statutory provisions like S. 147 MV Act when consent was given.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed; petitioner-insurer directed to deposit the awarded amount within one month.

National Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs Jharna Sarkar and… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Tripura HC (2017)

¶1

THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA A G A R T A L A

¶2

Civil Revision Petition No.91 OF 2017

¶3

National Insurance Co. Ltd., Represented by its Divisional Manager, Akhaura Road, Agartala, P.S. – West Agartala, District – West Tripura. Insurer of Vehicle No.TR-01J-6023 (Motor bike)

¶4

…. Petitioner.

¶5

-: Versus :-

¶6

Smt. Jharna Sarkar W/O. Late Kebal Chandra Sarkar, Resident of Howaibari, P.S. -Teliamura, District – Khowai, Tripura.

¶7

Shri Jhutan Sarkar S/O. Late Kebal Chandra Sarkar, Resident of Howaibari, P.S. -Teliamura, District – Khowai, Tripura.

¶8

….. Respondents.

¶9

B E F O R E

¶10

THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. T. VAIPHEI

¶11

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA

¶12

Counsel for the petitioner : Mr. A. Nandi, Advocate. Counsel for the respondents : None. Date of hearing : 25-10-2017. Date of Judgment & Order : 03-11-2017

¶13

JUDGMENT & ORDER

¶14

[ T. Vaiphei, CJ ]

¶15

In this civil revision filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner-insurer is questioning the legality of the award dated 12-3-2017 passed by the Special Lok Adalat (MAC No. 1), Khowai in TS (MAC) No. 10 of 2016.

¶16

Mr. A. Nandi, the learned counsel for the insurer, assailing the impugned award, submits that the deceased riding the motor bike, who met

¶17

Civil Revision Petition No.91 OF 2017 Page 1 of 3

¶18

with the vehicular accident in question, was none other than the owner of the motorcycle and his legal representatives such as his wife cannot, therefore, claim the compensation. According to the learned counsel, the award made by the Special Lok Adalat runs counter to the provisions of Section 147 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and is therefore, void and is, therefore, liable to be set aside. The learned counsel maintains that the representative of the petitioner-insurer appearing before the Lok Adalat was not a legal expert and did not know the legal position in this behalf, which resulted in illegally giving his consent. To fortify his submissions, he relies on Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jhuma Saha (Smt) and others, (2007) 9 SCC 263 ,

¶19

Bharvagi Constructions and another v. Kothakapu Muthyam Reddy & ors in Civil Appeal No. 11345 of 2017 arising out of SLP (C) No. 23605 of 2015 and the decision of this Court in CRP No. 32 of 2017 (Union of India & ors. v. Md. Abdul Gafur Chowdhury & ors.) .

¶20

We have carefully gone through the impugned award. It is seen from the impugned award that the compromise was arrived at with the consent of the authorized representative of the insurer and the claimants and was signed by the parties with their eyes wide open. There is no evidence to show that the legal representative was unaware of the legal position. No fraud or misrepresentation is alleged by the petitioner. All that it said is that the vehicle was driven by the owner himself, who could not be a third party and that no additional premium was paid by the deceased to cover any risk for death or bodily injury to the owner. This is the elementary rule of insurance, which is known to every official of any insurance company. Instead of defending the case on the ground of violation of Section 147 of MV Act, they chose to settle the case in the Lok Adalat out of court; there is no question making a plea regarding violation of the above provision of law. Having agreed to the settlement upon which the award was passed, it is now too late in the day to complain that the agreement is void. The petitioner is only

¶21

Civil Revision Petition No.91 OF 2017 Page 2 of 3

¶22

interested in avoiding payment of the compensation by coming up with such an untenable plea to challenge the validity of the impugned award.

¶23

At this stage, we may remind ourselves that the award made in the Lok Adalat is enforceable as a decree and it is final. On all fours, the endeavor is only to see that the disputes are narrowed down and make the final settlement so that the parties are not again driven to further litigation or any dispute. Though the award of a Lok Adalat is not a result of a contest on merits just as a regular suit by a court in a regular trial is, however, it is as equal and on a par with a decree on compromise and will have the same binding effect and be conclusive. Just as the decree passed on compromise cannot be challenged in a regular appeal, the award of the Lok Adalat, being akin to the same, cannot be challenged by any of the regular remedies available under law. Challenge to the award of the LoK Adalat can be made only by filing a writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution and that too on very limited grounds such as fraud or misrepresentation or illegality of the like nature. But the ground of challenge in the instant case is not one contemplated by law.

¶24

For the reasons stated in the foregoing, there is no merit in this revision petition, which is, therefore, dismissed. The petitioner-insurer is directed to deposit the awarded amount of the Lok Adalat before the concerned Tribunal within one month from the date of receipt of this judgment for payment to the claimant-respondents.

¶25

JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE

¶26

Civil Revision Petition No.91 OF 2017 Page 3 of 3

National Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Jharna Sarkar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

National Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Jharna Sarkar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ratan Debbarma Vs N.B.C.C. Ltd. and Ors.

Ratna Majumder Vs the State of Tripura and Ors.

Anjana Bhattacharjee Vs State of Tripura and 9 Ors.

Sangeeta Choudhury Vs State of Tripura and Ors.

Union of India and Ors. Vs Kalpana Choudhury

Nirmal Das Vs Union of India and Ors.