Sanchayita lahkar

The High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam, Single Bench of Justice C.S. Dias, quashed an award issued by a Lok Adalat on grounds of alleged impersonation and directed the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal to conduct a joint trial on the disputed claims.

The petitioner, aged 24 years, is the claimant in O.P.(M.V.) No.1753/2018 filed before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Palakkad. The petition was initiated to seek compensation for injuries sustained in a road accident on 29.11.2017 involving a bus bearing registration number KL-15-9579 owned by the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC), driven by the second respondent and insured with the third respondent, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

Also Read: Gang Rape | Supreme Court Upholds Conviction as Penetrative Act by One Fixes Guilt on All If Common Intention Exists | Life Sentence Reduced to 10 Years

According to the petitioner, the bus in which he was travelling collided with the KSRTC bus, leading to serious injuries. The incident was registered by the Kongadu Police, who filed a charge sheet against the second respondent. The petitioner's compensation claim under O.P.(M.V.) No.1753/2018 was objected to by the insurer on the basis that a prior claim, O.P.(M.V.) No.712/2018, had already been filed and settled through a Lok Adalat, evidenced by Ext.P5 award.

The petitioner contended that he had never filed O.P.(M.V.) No.712/2018, and that the said claim had been instituted fraudulently through impersonation by an unknown party acting through Advocate K. Jelly. Ext.P5 was alleged to be a nullity, executed without his knowledge or consent.

In contrast, the insurer (third respondent) submitted that Ext.P5 was duly signed by a judicial officer, the petitioner, his counsel, and the representatives of the insurance company. They asserted that the claim contained documents identical to those in O.P.(M.V.) No.1753/2018, undermining the petitioner’s allegations.

When the writ petition came up for hearing on 13.01.2025, the High Court directed the Tribunal to produce the records of O.P.(M.V.) No.712/2018 and stayed proceedings in the second claim petition. Upon inspection, prima facie discrepancies in the signatures of the petitioner in the two petitions and the disputed Lok Adalat award were noted.

The Court took cognizance of the fact that Advocate K. Jelly, through whom the alleged fraudulent claim was filed, had died on 30.07.2024. This impeded verification through the counsel who attested the disputed documents.

Justice C.S. Dias examined the applicable statutory provisions and legal principles governing Lok Adalats. Referring to Section 20 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, the Court noted: "no matter shall be referred to the Lok Adalat except after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the other party."

Further citing Regulation Nos. 16 and 17 of the National Legal Services Authority (Lok Adalats) Regulations, 2009, the Court reiterated the obligations on Lok Adalat members to verify the identity of parties, particularly when they are not represented by counsel:

"Where the parties are not accompanied or represented by counsel, the members of the Lok Adalat shall also verify the identity of parties, before recording the settlement."

The Court also recorded that: "Even if the parties are represented and identified by their counsel, the Lok Adalat shall ensure that unscrupulous litigants do not commit fraud or forgery."

Comparative analysis of signatures across the disputed and current claim petitions revealed "significant discrepancy in the signatures of the executants." Since the counsel through whom the earlier claim was filed had passed away, "it is impossible to verify the above-disputed issues through the counsel."

Referring to Supreme Court precedent in K. Srinivasappa v. M. Mallamma [(2022) 17 SCC 460], the Court held: "A writ court cannot, in a casual manner, dehors any reasoning, set aside the order of the Lok Adalat. The award of a Lok Adalat cannot be reversed or set aside without setting aside the facts recorded in such award as being fraudulently arrived at."

Also Read: Rajasthan High Court Quashes Commercial Court Decree | Return Barred Unless Order Exceeds Capacity Under Clause 9 (5) (g) | Clause 13 (9) Allows Risk Based Substitution

Further relying on Usha K. v. Renjith [W.A. No. 125/2024] and Yalamarthi Narasimha Rao v. District Legal Services Authority [2022 KHC OnLine 2812], the Court acknowledged the possibility of impersonation and forgery in Lok Adalat settlements and recorded: "Fraud unravels everything and avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal."

Upon considering the facts and materials on record, the High Court issued the following directions:

1. "Ext.P5 award is quashed."

2. "O.P.(M.V.) No.712/2018 is restored to file of the Tribunal."

3. "The Registry is directed to retransmit the records in O.P.(M.V.) No.712/2018 to the Tribunal."

4. "The Tribunal shall consolidate and jointly try O.P.(M.V.) Nos.712/2018 and 1753/2018."

5. "The Tribunal shall raise an issue as to who had filed O.P.No.712/2018."

6. "The Tribunal shall consider and dispose of both the claim petitions in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within six months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment."

7. "In case it is found the petitioner has been impersonated, the Tribunal shall take action in accordance with law."

8. "The Tribunal is ordered to forthwith refund the amount deposited by the 3rd respondent insurer in compliance with Ext.P5 award, in accordance with law."

9. "The Registry is directed to forward a copy of this judgment to the Member Secretary, Kerala State Legal Services Authority, to issue necessary guidelines to all the DLSAs/Lok Adalats to ensure that the identity of the parties is ascertained before the commencement of the settlement proceeding and an award is passed."

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: A.R. Nimod and M.A. Augustine

For Respondent: Sri. P.C. Chacko, Rajan P. Kaliyath, Sri. Lal K. Joseph

Case Title: Vaisakh A. Nair v. The Managing Director, KSRTC & Others

Neutral Citation: 2025: KER:32571

Case Number: W.P. (C) No. 38403 of 2024

Bench: Justice C.S. Dias

[Read/Download order]