IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision 3834 of 2007. Date of Decision: 28th January, 2008... United India Insurance Co. Ltd. ....Petitioner through Mr. D.P.Gupta, Advocate Versus Lakhbir Singh & Ors. ...Respondents through Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SURYA KANT,J.(ORAL) This revision petition is directed by the United India Insurance Company Limited against the order dated 8th March, 2001 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat established by the High Court. Vide the aforesaid order, the Lok Adalat decided FAO No. 3007 of 1999 (Lakhbir Singh and Ors. V United India Insurance Company Limited and Ors.). The facts may be noticed briefly. Jagdev Singh aged about 30 years and a carpenter by profession, died in a motor vehicular accident which took place on 30.10.1991. The truck bearing registration No.CHW-6387 involved in the accident, was insured by the petitioner – Insurance Company. The parents, two minor children and widow of Jagdev Singh filed a claim petition which was allowed by the learned Tribunal to the extent Civil Revision No. 3834 of 2007. ::-2-:: that compensation amount of Rs. 2,32,400/- was awarded to them. Feeling dis-satisfied, the claimants filed FAO No. 3007 of 1999 which was listed before the Permanent Lok Adalat for amicable disposal. The petitioner – Insurance Company was represented by Mr. Suman Jain, Advocate. The Permanent Lok Adalat , taking into consideration the earning capacity of the deceased as assessed by the Tribunal, merely observed that only 1/4th of the said income could be deducted for personal expenses, leaving behind a sum of Rs.1600/- towards dependency of the minor children, widow and parents of the deceased. Keeping in view the age of the deceased, the Permanent Lok Adalat applied the multiplier of 18 and determined the total compensation to the tune of Rs.3,29,000/-, i.e., Rs.96,600/- over and above the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal. Suddenly, the petitioner – Insurance Company is now aggrieved at the afore-said order and has filed this revision petition after six years on the pretext that the impugned order was passed by the Lok Adalat without any compromise or settlement between the parties. It appears that with a view to conceal the correct facts, that this revision petition has been got filed through another learned counsel. Neither the petition is supported by an affidavit of Mr. Suman Jain, Advocate who represented the petitioner Company before the Permanent Lok Adalat nor of any responsible officer of the Civil Revision No. 3834 of 2007. ::-3-:: Company who might be present when the matter was taken up by the Lok Adalat for final disposal. There is not even a whisper what to talk of explanation as to why objections were not filed before the Lok Adalat, though specifically permitted vide the impugned order. Besides this, the inordinate delay in impugning the aforesaid award passed by the Lok Adalat has also not been explained. The revision petition apparently lacks bona-fide and appears to have been filed to delay the execution of the award and, thus, to harass the claimants. Consequently, I do not find any ground to interfere with the order dated 8th March, 2001 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, more so when from the contents thereof , no inference of lack of consensus between the parties, can be drawn. This revision petition is accordingly dismissed with costs quantified at Rs.10,000/-. January 28, 2008. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE