IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY THURSDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY, TWO THOUSAND NINE ONLY WRIT PETITION No.17808 of 2000 Between: National Insurance Co. Ltd., Reptd., by its Regional Manager, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. … Petitioner And Chairman, District Legal Service Authority-cum- Lok Adalat-cum-District Judge, Machilipatnam, Krishna District and others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri M.Jeevan Reddy. Counsel for the respondents: None. This Court made the following: ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Certiorari to quash award dated 7-11-1998 passed by respondent No.1-Lok Adalat. Heard the learned counsel the petitioner and no one represented the respondents. Respondents 2 to 4 filed MVOP No.16 of 1997 against the petitioner and respondents 5 and 6 under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District & Sessions Judge, Krishna District at Machilipatnam claiming compensation for the death of one Sheik Masthan. The said O.P. was referred to Chairman of Lok Adalat-cum-District and Sessions Judge, Krishna District at Machilipatnam. By award dated 7-11-1998 the dispute was settled by the Lok Adalat and, according to the terms of the settlement, the Divisional Manager of the petitioner-Company accepted the quantum of compensation of Rs.90,000/- for full and final settlement of the claim of respondents 2 to 4 subject to production of charge sheet. In its affidavit, the petitioner averred that charge sheet dated 30-12-1998 produced by respondents 2 to 4 contains a charge to the effect that the driver of the offending vehicle did not have a valid driving licence. The petitioner, therefore, filed the present Writ Petition on the ground of suppression of material fact by respondents 2 to 4. In my considered view, this Writ Petition is wholly misconceived. It is not the case of the petitioner that respondents 2 to 4 pleaded that the driver had a valid driving licence. The question whether the driver had a valid driving licence or not would not be in the exclusive knowledge of respondents 2 to 4, who have nothing to do with the driver. At any rate, the charge, that the driver of the offending vehicle did not have a valid driving licence, is a mere accusation and there is no conclusive finding on the said aspect. Therefore, there was no reason for the petitioner to claim that respondents 2 to 4 suppressed any material fact. It would be in the realm of hypothesis as to what finding would be rendered by the criminal court on the charge that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid driving licence if the Lok Adalat did not pass the award. At any rate, the petitioner cannot plead suppression of any fact on the mere ground of a charge having been framed to the effect that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid driving licence. The petitioner should have made diligent enquiries regarding the facts of the case before giving its consent for passing an award by the Lok Adalat. Having allowed the consent award to be passed, it is not permissible for the petitioner to seek invalidation of the same on a flimsy ground such as the one which is raised in the Writ Petition, as referred to above. The Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed. ----------------------------- ------- C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:12-2-2009 MNR