9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2008 (1) TMI 960X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der : FAO No.1549 of 1999 "After hearing counsel for the parties, we propose to increase in the amount of compensation, which is considered just and reasonable in this case. The accident took place on March 4, 1997. Amarjit Kaur, aged about 32 years, died in the accident. Her husband and minor son claimed compensation. The Tribunal granted Rs. 1,44,000/- along with 12 percent per annum interest. Feeling dissatisfied, they are in appeal. The deceased was doing household work and also looking after some cattle and selling milk. The tribunal fixed earning capacity at Rs. 900/- and dependency at Rs. 600/- Applying multiplier of 15, compensation was worked out at Rs. 1,08,000/-. To this a sum of Rs. 28,253 on account of medical expenses, Rs. 2147/- towards incidental charges and Rs. 5600/- towards hospital charges were allowed. We are of the opinion that the earning capacity of the household wife has been determined on the lower side. An ordinary labourer gets Rs. 1200/- per mensem and at the lowest at least Rs. 1200/- should have been determined the earning capacity of the deceased and dependency of the claimants at Rs. 800/-. The multiplier of 15 applied in this case is also on th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Judge of the High Court by the following order dated 26.2.2003 : "The instant petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution seeking necessary directions quashing the order dated 3.8.2001 passed by the Lok Adalat enhancing the compensation in favour of the claimant- respondents to the tune of Rs. 62,000/-. The order of the Lok Adalat specifically indicated that if the parties were not satisfied, they could file objections within a period of two months for the disposal of the appeal on merits in accordance with law. The petitioners-State had filed objections which were dismissed on 11.9.2002 and the order of the Lok Adalat dated 3.8.2001 had attained finality. Now the instant petition has been filed against challenging the order of the Lok Adalat dated 3.8.2001. Nothing has been pointed out showing that such a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is maintainable. Apart from the fact that the Lok Adalat has granted time for filing the objections and the objections have been dismissed, the meager increase in the amount of compensation does not warrant any interference. In view of the above, the petition is dismissed being not maintainable." (emphasis su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rties at its instance, and put its seal of confirmation by making an award in terms of the compromise or settlement. When the Lok Adalat is not able to arrive at a settlement or compromise, no award is made and the case record is returned to the court from which the reference was received, for disposal in accordance with law. No Lok Adalat has the power to "hear" parties to adjudicate cases as a court does. It discusses the subject matter with the parties and persuades them to arrive at a just settlement. In their conciliatory role, the Lok Adalats are guided by principles of justice, equity, fair play. When the LSA Act refers to 'determination' by the Lok Adalat and 'award' by the Lok Adalat, the said Act does not contemplate nor require an adjudicatory judicial determination, but a non-adjudicatory determination based on a compromise or settlement, arrived at by the parties, with guidance and assistance from the Lok Adalat. The 'award' of the Lok Adalat does not mean any independent verdict or opinion arrived at by any decision making process. The making of the award is merely an administrative act of incorporating the terms of settlement or compromise agr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on to its order, the appellants moved the High Court by an application in the appeal, stating that they had not agreed to the enhancement proposed by Lok Adalat and praying that the order of the Lok Adalat increasing the compensation by Rs. 62,200 may be set aside as there was no settlement or compromise. The learned single Judge failed to notice that there was no settlement or compromise between the parties; that the order made by the Lok Adalat was not an award in terms of any settlement as contemplated under the LSA Act; that the Lok Adalat had clearly stated that the parties may either agree to it, or move the High Court for disposal of the appeal on merits in accordance with law; and that in the absence of any settlement and 'award', the appeal before the High Court continued to be pending and could not have been treated as finally disposed of. The learned single Judge instead of perusing the order of the Lok Adalat and hearing the appeal on merits, proceeded on a baseless assumption that the order dated 3.8.2001 of the Lok Adalat was a binding award and therefore an application to hear the appeal, was not maintainable and the only remedy for the appellants was to chal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
