IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 317 of 2004. Date of decision: 16.12.2010. HRTC …Petitioner. Versus Asha Chauhan & Others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate. For respondents: None. Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) This petition is directed against the order of Lok Adalat whereby it was held that the matter has been settled for Rs. 9,75,000/- along with future interest @ 12% per annum from 19.10.1996. It would be pertinent to mention that the MACT in the case had awarded total compensation of Rs. 10,80,000/- along with future interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the same was paid or deposited in Court. 2. The HRTC filed an appeal before this Court which was registered as FAO No. 293 of 2001. The claimants did not file any appeal or cross-objections. The matter was taken up in the Lok Adalat where negotiations were held and it was agreed 1 Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? that the compensation payable would be Rs. 9,75,000/-. 3. It appears that statements of Shri K.C. Chauhan, Deputy Divisional Manager were already typed out and certain blanks were left in the proforma. These blanks were for the amount of compensation, rate of interest and date from which the interest was awarded. This is apparent from Annexure P-9 which shows that otherwise the statement of Shri K.C. Chauhan had been typed out, but only these three blanks were filled in at a later stage. In this statement, the amount of settlement was given as Rs. 9,75,000/- and rate of interest 12% per annum and the date from which interest was commenced as 19.10.1996. On the basis of this statement, award was passed in the Lok Adalat on 9.11.2003. 4. The HRTC thereafter filed an application in the month of December, 2003 itself before this Court under Section 152 of CPC claiming that the statement of Sh. K.C. Chauhan had been wrongly recorded and that in all the cases settled in the Lok Adalat rate of interest was the same as was ordered by the MACT. It was further averred that in case interest was allowed @ 12% per annum, the HRTC would be liable to pay about Rs. 1.5 lakhs more than the amount payable under the award under challenge. This application was dismissed solely on the ground that the award of the Lok Adalat could only be set aside in proceedings under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India and not in an application under Section 152 CPC. Hence the present petition. 5. I have gone through the record and from the same it is apparent that either Sh. K.C. Chauhan or the official of the Lok Adalat recording his statement made a mistake when the matter was compromised. When a party compromises a matter obviously it will compromise the same when it derives some benefit. In a case like the present, the HRTC would compromise the matter if it had to pay something less than what it was liable to pay under the award. Even if it wanted to pay the same amount, it would have just withdrawan the appeal. In this case the claimants had not filed any appeal or cross-objections. Therefore, there was no occasion to agree to settle the claim in such a fashion that the amount payable would be more than the amount payable under the impugned award. In case the award of the Lok Adalat is upheld, the HRTC will have to pay a sum of Rs. 1,62,000/- more than what was payable under the old award. It is apparent that the rate of interest was incorrectly recorded. Even otherwise in MACT cases the interest awarded is normally 9% per annum. As such the present petition is allowed, the award of the Lok Adalat is modified and the rate of interest is reduced from 12% per annum to 9% per annum. The HRTC shall be entitled to refund all the balance principal amount of Rs. 1,05,000/- along with proportionate interest. No order as to costs. (Deepak Gupta) Judge December 16, 2010 (guleria)