IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST OCTOBER 2009 / 29TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 20048 of 2009(A) ------------------------------------- OPMV.1329/2002 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, NEYYATTINKARA .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, "SHARANYA" HOSPITAL ROAD, KOCHI - 11. BY ADV. MR.MATHEWS JACOB, SENIOR ADVOCATE MR.P.JACOB MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL NEYYATTINKARA,. 2. PUSHPAKARAN NAIR S/O. DAMODARAN PILLAI, PANANGODE VEEDU, CHERUPOTTA, ANTHIYOORKONAM, KOLLODE P.O. VIA MALAYINKIL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. K.S.MOHAMMED HASHIM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 20048 of 2009(A) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22.3.2008 IN I.A. NO. 1262 OF 2007 IN OP(MV) 1329 OF 2002 BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD PASSED BY LOK ADALAT, NEYYATTINKARA DATED 10.3.2007. // TRUE COPY // PA TO JUDGE rhs S. SIRI JAGAN, J ............................................... W.P(C) No. 20048 of 2009 ................................................. Dated this the 21st day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T An insurance company which is one of the respondents in O.P.(MV) No. 1329 of 2002 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Neyyattinkara has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P1 order in I.A. No. 1262 of 2007, in that O.P., reviewing an order passed in the Lok Adalat settling the claim for Rs.48,000/-, accepting the averment of the claimant that amount of Rs.48,000/- was wrongly recorded instead of Rs.70,000/-, which was the amount agreed by the parties. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is settled law that an award passed by the Lok Adalat is not liable to be challenged in so far as the same is an agreed order. He therefore submits that the claimant cannot later on seek review of the award for an enhanced amount. 2. I have considered the contentions of the petitioner. 3. Ext.P1 order is not passed in an appeal against the award. The contention of the claimant was that the actual amount agreed between the parties was Rs.70,000/- and the amount of Rs.48,000/- was wrongly recorded in the award which he wanted to be W.P(C) No. 20048 of 2009 -2- corrected. The Tribunal in Ext.P1 order held that although the said averment of the claimant was not admitted by the petitioner, there was not specific denial of that averment. Therefore the Tribunal accepted the averment of the claimant that the actual amount arrived at in the Lok Adalat was Rs.70,000/- and not Rs. 48,000/- and accordingly reviewed the order incorporating Rs.70,000/- instead of Rs.48,000/- as agreed amount in the award. I am of opinion that even the Lok Adalat cannot be denied the power to correct its own mistakes in an award. The Tribunal accepted the contention of the claimant that the amount was mistakenly incorporated in the award which the Tribunal has corrected. The petitioner has also not chosen to challenge the finding that in the counter filed by them they had not denied the averment of the claimant that the amount incorporated was not the amount agreed by the parties, by producing a copy of their counter affidavit along with the writ petition. In the above circumstances, I do not think that there is any error of jurisdiction in the Tribunal allowing the review petition. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly the same is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE rhs