9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2008 (1) TMI 960 - SC - Indian LawsMaintainable or Not to challenge an Award of the Permanent Lok Adalat - No compromise or settlement is signed by the parties - conciliation proceedings mandatory under Section 22C of the Legal Services Act 1987 (LSA) - Appeal filled by Legal heirs of the deceased for enhancement of compensation - Women died in a motor accident involving a Punjab roadways bus - Punjab Roadways (second appellant) filed an application to set aside passed by the Lok Adalat, as it was passed without their consent - HELD THAT - It is true that where an award is made by Lok Adalat in terms of a settlement arrived at between the parties, (which is duly signed by parties and annexed to the award of the Lok Adalat), it becomes final and binding on the parties to the settlement and becomes executable as if it is a decree of a civil court, and no appeal lies against it to any court. If any party wants to challenge such an award based on settlement, it can be done only by filing a petition under Article 226 and/or Article 227 of the Constitution, that too on very limited grounds. But where no compromise or settlement is signed by the parties and the order of the Lok Adalat does not refer to any settlement, but directs the respondent to either make payment if it agrees to the order, or approach the High Court for disposal of appeal on merits, if it does not agree, is not an award of the Lok Adalat. The question of challenging such an order in a petition under Article 227 does not arise. As already noticed, in such a situation, the High Court ought to have heard and disposed of the appeal on merits. But the travails continued. In view of the order dated 11.9.2002 passed by the learned single Judge holding that a petition under Article 227 has to be filed to challenge the order of the Lok Adalat, the appellants filed a petition under Article 227. But the said petition was dismissed by another single Judge on the ground that the order of Lok Adalat passed on 3.8.2001 had attained finality as the objections to it were dismissed on 11.9.2002 and a petition under Article 227 was not maintainable to challenge the order of Lok Adalat. He failed to notice that the order dated 3.8.2001 was neither a decision nor had it attained finality. He also failed to notice that the objections to the order were not rejected by the High Court after consideration on merits. He also overlooked the fact that the learned Judge who decided the appellants' application, had directed that the order of the Lok Adalat should be challenged by filing a petition under Article 227. Be that as it may. Thus we find that the Lok Adalat exercised a power/jurisdiction not vested in it. On the other hand, the High Court twice refused to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it, thereby denying justice and driving the appellants to this Court. In this process, a simple appeal by the legal heirs of the deceased for enhancement of compensation, has been tossed around and is pending for more than eight years, putting them to avoidable expense and harassment. We therefore allow this appeal and quash the order of the Lok Adalat as also set aside the orders of the High Court. As a consequence, the High Court shall hear and dispose which continues to be pending on its record, on merits in accordance with law.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity and jurisdiction of the Lok Adalat's order. 2. Maintainability of objections to the Lok Adalat's order. 3. Jurisdiction of the High Court in handling the appeal. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity and Jurisdiction of the Lok Adalat's Order: The Supreme Court scrutinized the order passed by the Lok Adalat, which had increased the compensation to Rs. 62,200 without the consent of the parties. The Court highlighted that Lok Adalats do not have adjudicatory or judicial functions but are meant for conciliation. It was emphasized that Lok Adalats should act to facilitate a compromise or settlement between parties, not to adjudicate disputes. The Lok Adalat had acted beyond its jurisdiction by assuming a judicial role and passing an order without a settlement or compromise. The Supreme Court declared the order of the Lok Adalat void as it was beyond the power and jurisdiction of the Lok Adalat. 2. Maintainability of Objections to the Lok Adalat's Order: Punjab Roadways filed an application to set aside the Lok Adalat's order, which was rejected by the High Court on the ground that such objections were not maintainable. The Supreme Court noted that the Lok Adalat's order was not an award based on a settlement, as required by the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. The Court emphasized that without a settlement, the Lok Adalat's order could not be considered final or binding. Therefore, the objections to the Lok Adalat's order were indeed maintainable, and the High Court should have heard the appeal on merits. 3. Jurisdiction of the High Court in Handling the Appeal: The High Court had dismissed the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, holding that the Lok Adalat's order was final. The Supreme Court criticized this approach, pointing out that the High Court failed to recognize the absence of a settlement and the non-adjudicatory nature of the Lok Adalat's functions. The Supreme Court clarified that in the absence of a settlement, the High Court should have treated the appeal as pending and disposed of it on merits. The High Court's refusal to exercise its jurisdiction led to unnecessary delays and expenses for the appellants. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed the Lok Adalat's order dated 3.8.2001, and set aside the High Court's orders dated 11.9.2002 and 26.2.2003. The case was remanded to the High Court for a fresh hearing and disposal of the appeal (FAO No.1549/1999) on merits, in accordance with the law. The Supreme Court requested the High Court to expedite the disposal of the appeal, with each party bearing their respective costs.
|
