IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.4997 of 2002 Date of decision:17.12.2009 Krishan Kumar ...Petitioner versus Jug Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner None for the respondents. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? Yes. 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? Yes. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? Yes. ---- K.Kannan, J. (Oral) 1. In a purported settlement before a Lok Adalat, a compromise is alleged to have been entered into between a claimant and the Haryana Roadways for Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation for injuries suffered by the claimant. Curiously, the award had not been passed at the Lok Adalat itself and it had come back to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal, who has passed the award referring to an alleged settlement before the Lok Adalat. The award had been passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal on 06.02.1999 and this award is challenged in the above civil revision invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Civil Revision No.4997 of 2002 - 2 - 2. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that he had suffered a serious injury with 100% disability and he had never been a willing party to any kind of settlement. The award could not have been passed with no consent of the petitioner. The cognizance of cases before the Lok Adalat would be possible under Section 20 clauses (1) &(2) of the Legal Services Authority Act only under three circumstances: (i) where the parties agree in any matter pending before a Court; (ii) any matter which is falling within the jurisdiction of any Court but not before it for which the Lok Adalat is organized; (iii) when one of the parties makes an application to the Court for a reference to the Lok Adalat and such Court is prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement or that the Court is satisfied that the matter is appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat. Section 20(3) details of procedure for consideration which is referred to Lok Adalat under Clause (1) or where a reference has been made to it under Clause (2), when the Lok Adalat may proceed to dispose of the case and arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties. The Lok Adalat’s power to enter an award arising under Section 21 shall be on the basis of such settlement or compromise. The award passed by the Lok Adalat shall be a decree of the Court but such a decree shall invariably be on the basis of a settlement or a compromise. 3. The adjudicatory functions in a Lok Adalat do not extend beyond such settlement and it cannot be an award valid in the eye of law if there is no settlement. In this case, if there was a settlement between the parties before the Lok Adalat, it is not clear as to why the matter was Civil Revision No.4997 of 2002 - 3 - brought before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal again for passing an award. The award itself does not spell out the terms of settlement between the parties in express terms. There should be, first of all, the terms of settlement before the Lok Adalat signed by both parties or the respective counsel and the Lok Adalat shall then affix its imprimatur for such settlement or compromise. If it was not brought before the Lok Adalat itself and sent to a Tribunal or a Court, a decree that it may pass takes shape of a decree which a Court will be empowered to pass under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC where, again, the Court shall on examination of the legality and validity of the terms of settlement pass a decree in terms of settlement. In either case, the terms of the settlement shall form part of the decree. In this case, I do not find such terms of settlement has been made part of the award. 4. The learned counsel states that the petitioner was never a willing party to any compromise for Rs.1,50,000/-. The appropriate remedy for the petitioner shall be to seek for adjudication on whether there existed a compromise or a settlement to which he was willing and to which he has affixed his signatures. If there existed none then the award itself cannot stand. If there exists any settlement to which he has been a signatory, the question whether such a settlement had been made voluntarily after knowing fully the recitals will be still a matter which the Tribunal shall consider before it approves or sets aside its own award dated 06.02.1999. The petitioner cannot have any remedy in this Court. As held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in P.T.Thomas Versus Thomas Job-(2005) 6 SCC 478, no appeal shall lie from an award under Section Civil Revision No.4997 of 2002 - 4 - 21(2) of Legal Services Authority Act; nor can it be challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Judicial review can not be invoked in such awards, especially on grounds amounting to a challenge to the factual findings or appraisal of evidence. 4. In the above circumstances, I deem it appropriate that the matter shall go to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal and the Tribunal shall examine the validity of its own award in the light of observations made above with right given to both the parties to adduce such evidence as they deem fit to adduce. The grounds of civil revision filed before this Court will constitute the pleadings for the petitioner and the Tribunal shall serve notice on the respondents and after giving an opportunity to file the objections, undertake the enquiry. The issue whether the award already granted shall stand affirmed or set aside to allow the parties to seek an adjudication afresh will depend on the outcome of the decision of the Tribunal on a consideration of the validity of the award, which it had passed on 06.02.1999. With such observations, the Civil Revision is disposed of. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 17.12.2009 sanjeev