Nazir Ahmad Teli & Anr vs Shri Ram Genl. Insurance Co. And ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 1721 j&K/2

     HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT
                       SRINAGAR

                                              Reserved on: 28.12.2021
                                              Pronounced on: 31.12.2021

                             OWP No.1613/2014


NAZIR AHMAD TELI & ANR.                                ...PETITIONER(S)

             Through: Mr. Faisal Javaid, Advocate.

Vs.

SHRI RAM GENL. INSURANCE CO. AND OTHERS             ....RESPONDENT(S)

             Through: None.


CORAM:         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE


                                  JUDGMENT

1) Petitioners have challenged order dated 24.06.2014 passed by the

Lok Adalat, whereby, on the basis of settlement between petitioners and

the respondent Insurance Company, a sum of Rs.3,20,000/ has been

awarded as compensation in favour of the petitioners as full and final

settlement of the claim petition that was filed by the petitioners against

the respondent Insurance Company before Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal, Srinagar.

2) Petitioners have challenged the impugned order on the grounds

that no negotiation had taken place between petitioners and the

respondent Insurance Company and that the counsel who had appeared

on their behalf had no authority to enter into negotiation to settle the

claim.

3) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the

record of the case.

4) A perusal of the record shows that petitioners claim petition

against the respondent Insurance Company, which had arisen out of the

death of their daughter in a road traffic accident, was placed before the

Lok Adalat on 24.06.2014. Before the Lok Adalat, statements of

counsels for parties i.e., counsel for the respondent Insurance Company

and the counsel for the petitioners, were recorded and it was agreed that

an amount of Rs.3,20,000/ shall be paid by the respondent Insurance

Company to the petitioners in full and final settlement of the claim

petition.

5) The record further reveals that the petitioners had executed a

Vakalatnama in favour of the counsel who had entered into negotiations

with the respondent Insurance Company. As per the terms of the

Vakalatnama, the counsel was authorized to enter into compromise on

behalf of the petitioners. Therefore, it does not lie in the mouth of the

petitioners to say that they had not authorized the counsel to enter into

negotiations and compromise with the respondent Insurance Company,

particularly when they do not dispute the engagement of the counsel to

prosecute the case on their behalf.

6) If the litigants are encouraged to resile from the compromises

arrived at by their counsels in the absence of allegations of fraud or

deceit, then it would be difficult for the Courts to rely upon the

statements of counsels which they make before the Courts on behalf of

their clients on a regular basis. The trend of challenging the acts of

counsels by litigants on flimsy grounds and without any substance needs

to be curbed.

7) For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in this petition

The same is, accordingly, dismissed.

(Sanjay Dhar) Judge Srinagar, 31.12.2021 "Bhat Altaf, PS"

                                           Whether the order is speaking:     Yes/No
                                           Whether the order is reportable:   Yes/No




MOHAMMAD ALTAF BHAT
2021.12.31 14:46
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document