( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3763 OF 2009 M/s National Insurance Co. Ltd. through its Divisional Manager PETITIONER VERSUS Sakharbai Dadarao Waghadkar and others. RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. V.N. Upadhye, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.B. Deshpande, advocate for the respondents. ..... [CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.] [DATE : 9th April, 2010] PER COURT : 1. Heard Mr. Upadhye, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Deshpande, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This petition takes exception to the judgement and order dated 07-02-2009, passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (M.A.C.T.), Shrirampur, in review application No. 3/2008 whereby the review ( 2 ) application filed by the present petitioner came to be rejected. 3. An award came to be passed in Lok Adalat pursuant to the settlement arrived at between the parties on 07-09-2008. Thereafter, the present petitioner filed review application on the ground that they are misled by the representation of the respondents herein and also on the ground that they found that the valid driving licence was not in existence when the accident took place. 4. The learned Member of the M.A.C.T. rejected the said review application on the ground that there was no fraud played on the Court. The Insurance Company had voluntarily entered into the settlement with the respondents and as such, there is no error apparent on the face of record. It is not a case of suppression or mis-representation on the part of the respondents to the Tribunal. On this premise, the review application came to be dismissed. 5. Mr. Upadhye, the learned counsel, canvased that ( 3 ) it is a case of fraud played by the present respondents. They had undertaken investigation and found that on the date when the accident had taken place, the driving licence had expired and the same was renewed subsequently. As it is a case of fraud, the Court has ample powers to review the said award. To buttress his argument, learned counsel relied on the dictum of this Court in case of “United India Insurance Company Limited v. Shabbir M. Attarwala and others” reported in 2006 (5) Bom.C.R. 102. In the said case, the Insurance Company had taken up a defence and they had stated that if at all Lok Adalat is to deal with case, insurer can accept liability upto Rs. 6,28,000/- only, but the Lok Adalat passed award to the tune of Rs. 13 lakhs with some directions in favour of disabled minor son of applicant. 6. In the present case, the petitioner on its own volition had entered into settlement with the respondents. No riders were put by the petitioner at the time of arriving at settlement with the respondents. As the settlement was voluntary, in such circumstances, it cannot be said that the Lok Adalat had erred in recording ( 4 ) the settlement of passing the award pursuant to the terms of the settlement. In such circumstances, no fault can be found with the order of the learned Member of M.A.C.T., Shrirampur. 7. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. Needless to say that the respondents shall be entitled to withdraw the amount deposited by the petitioner, in view of rejection of the writ petition. There shall be no order as to costs. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA ] JUDGE NPJ/wp3763-09