Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Devinedi Bangaru Babu vs Devinedi Anpama on 1 July, 2024
Author: R Raghunandan Rao
Bench: R Raghunandan Rao
APHC010549172023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3488]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF JULY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
WRIT PETITION NO: 28832/2023
Between:
Devinedi Anupama and Others ...PETITIONER(S)
AND
S Bhagya Lakshmi and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. VENKATA RAMA RAO KOTA Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. MARRI VENKATA RAMANA
2. S. LAKSHMINARAYANA REDDY (SC FOR APSLSA)
3. NARESH BYRAPANENI
4.
5. VENKATESWARLU KOLLA 2 APHC010370782023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3488] (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 20908/2023 Between:
Devinedi Bangaru Babu and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND Devinedi Anpama and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. VENKATESWARLU KOLLA Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. NARESH BYRAPANENI
2. 3
The Court made the following common order:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) As both these Writ Petitions have been filed challenging the same award passed in the National Lok Adalat vide proceedings of 13.08.2022, these two Writ Petitions are being disposed of by way of this common order.
2. Heard Sri Venkata Rama Rao Kota, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.No.28832 of 2023, Sri Venkateswarlu Kolla, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.No.20908 of 2023, Sri Marri Venkata Ramana, learned counsel appearing for the 8th respondent in W.P.No.28832 of 2023, Sri Naresh Byrapaneni, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Insurance Company and Sri S. Lakshmi Narayana Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Andhra Pradesh State Legal Services Authority (APSLSA) in both the writ petitions.
3. The petitioners in both these cases are the dependants of late Sri D. Ravi, who passed away in an accident which occurred on 05.12.2007. Thereafter, the petitioners in W.P.No.28832 of 2023 had filed M.V.O.P.No.9 of 2009 before the Learned XIII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Narasaraopet, claiming compensation of Rs.75,00,000/-. The 1st petitioner in W.P.No.20908 of 2023 was arrayed as 3rd respondent in the said M.V.O.P.No.9 of 2009. This petition was disposed of by an order dated 27.12.2010, granting compensation of Rs.14,60,000/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of the petition till the date of deposit of award amount by the respondents 1 & 2 therein.
4. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners in W.P.No.28832 of 2023 filed M.A.C.M.A.No.3153 of 2011 before this Court. The said appeal was referred to the National Lok Adalat, that was proposed to be conducted on 4 13.08.2022, for settlement. Upon certain figures being agreed, an award was passed for Rs.76,00,000/- in this National Lok Adalat on 13.08.2022.
5. The said award has been challenged by the writ petitioners in both these Writ Petitions on the ground that they had not agreed to the said award. It is the case of the petitioners in W.P.No.28832 of 2023 that they had not given any instructions to their counsel to settle the matter and that they were unaware of the settlement and as such the award itself in invalid. It is further argued that the award does not contain their signatures and as such the award cannot be treated as a proper award which is binding on them. They rely upon Section 22 (c) of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 which requires an award to be signed by all the parties. They also rely upon the Regulation 17 of the National Legal Services Authority (Lok Adalats) Regulations 2009, which is to the same effect.
6. The petitioners in W.P.No.20908 of 2023, while raising the same contentions, would raise an additional contention that their counsel was also not present and he did not participate nor sign the said award and as such the award would not be binding on them. It is further argued that the mother of the deceased person had passed away and her legal heirs had not yet been brought on record in the appeal and consequently, the award would not be binding on the said legal heirs who are now arrayed as petitioners 2 to 4 in W.P.No.20908 of 2023.
7. Sri S. Lakshmi Narayan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for APSLSA would submit that an award of Lok Adalat can only be set aside only on the ground of fraud as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhargavi Constructions and Another Vs. Kothakapu Muthyam Reddy 5 and Others1. He submits that there is no such case of fraud in the present case and it is at best a case of break-down in communication between the clients and the learned counsel appearing for them.
8. Sri Venkata Rama Rao Kota and Sri Korra Venkateswarlu, learned counsels would contend that the said principle would apply in a situation where the parties have participated in the conciliation proceedings and had signed the said award showing their consent for the said award. They would contend that in the absence of such consent and in the absence of their signatures, the question of the award being valid itself would arise. They also rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala dated 12.06.2023 in W.P.(C)19575 of 2013. In this judgment, a Learned Single Judge of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala after referring to Mary Gomas and Another vs. Vaitus and Others2, Leela vs. National Insurance Co.Ltd.3, Bal Reddy vs. Taluka Legal Services Committee, Narayanapet & Others4 had held that the absence of the signatures of the parties would render the award null and void.
9. The Learned Single Judge also referred to the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Himalayan Coop. Group Housing Society vs. Balwan Singh and Others5 and the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kirti and Another vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited6 to hold that a wrong concession or compromise made without obtaining instructions or authority from the clients will not bind the clients.
1AIR 2017 SCC 4428 2 2020 KHC 829 3 2008 (1) KLT 705 4 2012 KHC 2245 5 (2015) 7 SCC 373 6 2021 (2) SCC 166 6
10. Sri M. Venkat Ramana, learned counsel appearing for the 8th respondent (counsel who had appeared for the petitioners in M.A.C.M.A.No.3153 of 2011) contends that the learned counsel had agreed to the compromise on the basis of the instructions given to him by the learned counsel appearing before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. He also refers to the affidavit filed by the said counsel who had appeared before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal.
11. A perusal of these affidavits reveals that this is more a case of miscommunication and lack of communication between the learned counsel appearing for the parties and the parties themselves. It also appears that this miscommunication occurred primarily on account of the petitioners in W.P.No.28832 of 2023 leaving the country and settling in England.
12. A conspectus of the above facts reveals that the petitioners in W.P.No.28832 of 2023 and W.P.No.20908 of 2023 had not given express consent for the said award. In the absence of their signatures on the award, and in view of the specific submissions made above, it would only be appropriate that the award is set aside and restored to file and the parties are relegated to the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal for adjudication of their rights.
13. It may also be noted that Sri Naresh Byrapaneni, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent- Insurance Company has submitted that the amount of Rs.76,00,000/- which was recorded in the award had been deposited by the respondent- Insurance Company with the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal.
714. In the circumstances, these Writ Petitions are disposed of with the following directions:
1) The award in the Lok Adalat dated 13.08.2023 in MACMA 3153 of 2011 on the file of this Court is set aside and the parties are relegated back to M.A.C.M.A.No.3153 of 2011 before this Court for adjudication.
2) The respondent-Insurance Company is entitled to withdraw the aforesaid sum of Rs.76,00,000/- which has been deposited by the Insurance Company with the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum- XIII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Narasaraopet.
3) The said amount shall be released upon application being made by the Insurance Company without further reference to any of the writ petitioners or other claimants in the appeal.
4) The tribunal shall also release any interest which has accrued in the meanwhile.
There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any shall stand closed.
________________________ R RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J _______________ HARINATH.N, J 8 158 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO WRIT PETITION Nos: 28832 & 20908 of 2023 (per Hon'ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) 01.07.2024 MJA