Bombay High Court
New India Insurance Company Ltd ... vs Anil Bhanudas Dhanwate And Others on 20 March, 2017
Bench: S.B. Shukre
WP661716.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 6617 OF 2016
New India Insurance Co. Ltd.
Through its Authrozed Signatory/Branch Manager
Mahesh Auto Compound, Adalat Road,
Aurangabad. ..PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. Anil Bhanudas Dhanwate
Age: 29 years, Occu.: Agri.,
R/o D-54/13, Uttam Mithayi Bhandar,
HUDCO, T.V. Center, Aurangabad.
2. Ushabai Bhanudas Dhanwate
Age: 46 years, Occu.: Household,
R/o As above.
3. Bhanudas Ambadas Dhanwate
Since Deceased
Through L.Rs. i.e. Respondent Nos.1 and 2. ..RESPONDENTS
....
Mr. S.G. Chapalgaonkar, Advocate for petitioner.
Mr. A.P. Khedkar, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
....
CORAM : S.B. SHUKRE, J.
DATED : 20th MARCH, 2017
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent
of both sides.
1 / 3
WP661716.doc
2. A joint pursis is filed by the petitioner as well as respondents - original
claimants submitting that the award passed by the Lok Adalat was under
misconception of facts, without looking into the contents of compromise and terms
of settlement. Accordingly, a joint request has been made by the petitioner -
insurance company and respondents - original claimants to recall the award dated
12th December, 2015.
3. This pursis was placed before the Lok Adalat as per the order passed by
the Tribunal on 23rd December, 2015, but the Lok Adalat did not take cognisance
of such joint request and did not pass any order.
4. Considering of the joint request so made in accordance with the law
was absolutely essential for the Lok Adalat but it did not consider. I must state
that the Lok Adalat would have certainly the power to consider such a request and
found genuine, even to recall its award passed under Section 20 of the Local
Services Authorities Act, 1987. In this regard, I would like to draw support from
the view taken by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sachin Rukme Vs.
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (Appeal from Order No. 38/2000 with Writ Petition
No.3706 of 2003) decided on 23rd July, 2004. It is thus a case of refusal to exercise
the jurisdiction available under law by the Lok Adalat.
5. Now the question is, if the Lok Adalat has refused to exercise its
jurisdiction in the matter, whether same could be exercised by this Court here or
not. Answer to this question would depend upon the facts and
2 / 3
WP661716.doc
circumstances of each case. Upon considering the facts of this case, I am of the
view that this would be a fit case to exercise this power by this Court by invoking its
extra ordinary writ jurisdiction. The Lok Adalat has refused to exercise it's power
and so any direction to do the same when given by this Court is not likely to bring
in any useful result and may only led to delay and miscarriage of justice. In the
instant case, the insurance company as well as the original claimants have jointly
made a request for recalling of the award dated 12 th December, 2015. They have
admitted the point that there was actually no consent of the parties and whatever
took place on 12th December, 2015 was result of misconception of facts by the Lok
Adalat. Therefore, I am of the view that now necessary interference by this Court is
required in the instance case.
6. Accordingly, the award dated 12 th December, 2015 is hereby quashed
and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal for decision in
accordance with law. Writ petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute in those
terms. The Tribunal shall finally dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible and
preferably within a period of six months from the date of the order.
( S.B. SHUKRE, J. )
SSD
3 / 3
