[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Smt. Shaila W/O Late Indudarayya ... vs The Managing Director on 25 March, 2026
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
1
Reserved on : 03.12.2025
Pronounced on : 25.03.2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
R
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION No.102733 OF 2021 (GM-AC)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. SHAILA
W/O LATE INDUDARAYYA
KARKIHALLIMATH
OCC: HOUSEWIFE
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS.
2. VISHAL
S/O LATE INDUDARAYYA
KARKIHALLIMATH
AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS
SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY
HER NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER
THE 1ST RESPONDENT HEREIN
BOTH ARE R/O JANATHA QUARTERS
KRISHNA COLONY, ANANDANAGAR
HUBBALLI - 580 023.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SMT. SHIRIYA S.KATAGIMATH, ADVOCATE)
2
AND:
1 . THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
ICICI LOMBARD GIC LTD.,
NO.414, VEER SAVARKAR MARG
NEAR SIDDIVINAYAK TEMPLE
PRABHADEVI, MUMBAI.
REP. BY DIVISIONAL MANAGER
ICICI LOMBARD GIC LTD.,
GOKUL ROAD,
HUBBALLI - 580 030.
2 . THE PROPRIETOR
SREESAI AGRO INDUSTRIES
PLOT NO.61
TARIHAL INDUSTRIAL AREA
HUBBALLI - 580 023.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI S.K.KAYAKAMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI MAHESH WODEYAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF
CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, DIRECTIONS OR
ORDER QUASHING THE ANNEXURE-A THAT THE ORDER DATED
13.07.2019 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT LEGAL
SERVICES COMMITTEE, AT DHARWAD BENCH BEFORE THE
LOKADALATH (LOKADALATH NO.2267/2019) IN MFA
NO.100905/2014.
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 03.12.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
3
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CAV ORDER
The petitioners are before this Court calling in question the
award dated 13-07-2019 passed by the Lok Adalat in Lok Adalat
No.2267 of 2019 in M.F.A.No.100905 of 2014 (MV).
2. Heard Smt. Shriya S.Katagimath, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners, Sri S.K.Kayakamath, learned counsel
appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri Mahesh Wodeyar, learned
counsel appearing for respondent No.2.
3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows: -
The petitioners 1 and 2, mother and son respectively were
going as pillion riders in the motorcycle of the deceased, who is the
husband and father of petitioner Nos.1 and 2, respectively to ESI
Hospital for treatment of the 2nd petitioner for ailment. On the way,
in a road traffic accident involving a car and the motorcycle, the
husband of the 1st petitioner dies. A claim petition comes to be filed
after the death seeking compensation from the hands of the
4
Insurance Company. The Tribunal, in terms of its order dated
13-11-2013 in M.V.C. No.647 of 2012 awards a compensation of
₹9,18,600/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of
petition till the date of the amount is made good to the hands of the
claimants. The Insurance Company challenges the said award
before this Court in M.F.A. No.100905 of 2014. During the
subsistence of the appeal, the matter was referred to the Lok
Adalat and on the settlement arrived at between the parties before
the Lok Adalat, the award amount was reduced to ₹7,82,000/- as
full and final settlement, which is in reduction of the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal. The petitioners challenge the said award
of the Lok Adalat in the subject petition on the score that the
petitioners were not even aware that their learned counsel had
agreed for a settlement to reduce the award amount before the Lok
Adalat and that they had not signed the joint memo filed thereto.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits
that the reduction of the award amount is erroneous. The
settlement is arrived at between the earlier counsel for the
petitioners and the Insurance Company, which was never within the
5
knowledge of the petitioners. The deceased was the sole earning
member of the family and there was no other source of income.
Therefore, it is not possible for the petitioners to agree to a reduced
award amount. The deceased, at the relevant point in time, was
earning ₹6,000/- per month and ₹125/- per day as bhatta. As per
the chart of calculation of award notified by the Karnataka Legal
Services Authority itself it should have been at ₹7,000/- per month,
since the accident had occurred in the year 2012. Therefore, the
compensation would go beyond ₹12,00,000. It cannot be that the
petitioners would have accepted the reduced compensation amount
of ₹7,82,000/- before the Lok Adalat. The learned counsel submits
that the award be set aside and the appeal be restored to file with
one more opportunity to contest the matter.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the
1st respondent would submit that Lok Adalat had already
determined the dispute between the parties to be full and final.
₹7,82,000/- arrived at was on account of the joint memo being filed
before the Lok Adalat. The Lok Adalat sitting was conducted by this
Court. The award of the Lok Adalat cannot be set aside merely on
6
the ground that the petitioners have not signed the joint memo.
Once the Advocate represents them and signs the joint memo on
their behalf, it is deemed that they have consented to the joint
memo and agreed for closure of proceedings accordingly. He would
submit that if the petition is allowed, it would open a pandora's box,
as every Lok Adalat determination will be subject to question on the
ground that the claimants are not satisfied with the amount
awarded.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions
made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the
material on record.
7. The only issue that falls for consideration is, whether the
award of the Lok Adalat is to be set aside on the sole score that the
petitioners have not put their signatures on the joint memo which
culminated in the award?
8. The afore-narrated facts and link in the chain of events are
all a matter of record. The compensation determined by the
7
Tribunal while disposing M.V.C.No.647 of 2012 was ₹9,18,600/-
with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition
till the date of payment. The loss of dependency was calculated at
30% and added to the income of the deceased since he was 41
years at the time of his death. The salary considered was ₹6,000/-
per month. In terms of the law that prevailed then, the Tribunal
had determined the amount of compensation. The Insurance
Company challenges the award of the Tribunal in M.F.A.No.100905
of 2014. The contention was that the salary of the deceased was
not ₹6,000/- per month but it was ₹4,869/- per month. Therefore,
the Tribunal ought not to have taken ₹6,000/- and determined the
compensation. The compensation so determined by the Tribunal
was contrary to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
SARLA VERMA v. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION reported
in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and other judgments prevailing at that point
in time was the contention of the Insurance Company.
9. On 13-07-2019 when the appeal was subsisting before this
Court, the matter was referred to the Lok Adalat, wherein a joint
8
memo is filed before the Lok Adalat. The contents of the joint
memo are as follows:
"HIGH COURT LEGAL SERVICES COMMITTEE
DHARWAD BENCH AT DHARWAD
Misc. First Appeal No. 100905/2014 (MV)
Lok Adalat No.2267/2019
BETWEEN
ICICI Lombard Gen. Inu. Co. Ltd., ... Appellant/s
AND
Shaila & Others ... Respondent/s
JOINT MEMO
This appeal filed against the Judgment and Award in MVC
No.647/2012 on the file of the Prl. Senior Civil Judge &
AMACT., Hubballi, has been referred to this Lok Adalat by the
Hon'ble High Court u/s. 20 of the Legal Services Authorities Act,
1987. The parties to the appeal have settled their claim before
the Lok Adalat on the following terms:
The Appellant (ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co.
Ltd.,) has agreed to pay and respondent-claimant agreed to
receive a sum of Rs.7,82,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakh Eighty
Two Thousand Only) with 6% interest instead what has been
awarded by the Tribunal, in full and final settlement of the
claim.
The Appellant-Insurance Co. has agreed to deposit the
said amount before the Tribunal within six weeks from the date
of preparation of award, failing which the said amount shall
carry interest at 9% p.a. from the date of default, till the date of
deposit. The parties are not entitled to any cost.
The parties to this appeal have set their hands to this
settlement before the Lak Adalat in the presence of Conciliators
on the dtd: 13/07/2019 at Dharwad.
Sd/-
Signature of Appellant/s Signature of Respondent
Sd/- Sd/-
Advocate for Appellant/s Advocate for Respondent"
9
The joint memo admittedly does not bear the signature of the
claimants, as the signature portion of the claimants is left blank.
Who has signed the joint memo is the representative of the
Insurance Company, Advocate for the Insurance Company and
Advocate for the claimants.
10.1. The Apex Court considers what is an award made by the
Lok Adalat in STATE OF PUNJAB v. JALOUR SINGH1, wherein it
is held as follows:
".... .... ....
12. It is true that where an award is made by the
Lok Adalat in terms of a settlement arrived at between
the parties (which is duly signed by parties and annexed
to the award of the Lok Adalat), it becomes final and
binding on the parties to the settlement and becomes
executable as if it is a decree of a civil court, and no
appeal lies against it to any court. If any party wants to
challenge such an award based on settlement, it can be
done only by filing a petition under Article 226 and/or
Article 227 of the Constitution, that too on very limited
grounds. But where no compromise or settlement is
signed by the parties and the order of the Lok Adalat does
not refer to any settlement, but directs the respondent to
either make payment if it agrees to the order, or
approach the High Court for disposal of appeal on merits,
if it does not agree, is not an award of the Lok Adalat. The
question of challenging such an order in a petition under Article
227 does not arise. As already noticed, in such a situation, the
High Court ought to have heard and disposed of the appeal on
merits."
1
(2008)2 SCC 660
10
10.2. This is subsequently followed by the Apex Court in
BHARGAVI CONSTRUCTIONS v. KOTHAKAPU MUTHYAM
REDDY2, wherein it is held as follows:
".... .... ....
22. The question arose before this Court (three-
Judge Bench) in State of Punjab [State of
Punjab v. Jalour Singh, (2008) 2 SCC 660: (2008) 1 SCC
(Civ) 669: (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 524: (2008) 1 SCC (L&S)
535] as to what is the remedy available to the person
aggrieved of the award passed by the Lok Adalat under
Section 20 of the Act. In that case, the award was passed
by the Lok Adalat which had resulted in disposal of the
appeal pending before the High Court relating to a claim
case arising out of the Motor Vehicles Act. One party to
the appeal felt aggrieved of the award and, therefore,
questioned its legality and correctness by filing a writ
petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of
India. The High Court dismissed the writ petition holding
it to be not maintainable. The aggrieved party, therefore,
filed an appeal by way of special leave before this Court.
This Court, after examining the scheme of the Act allowed
the appeal and set aside the order of the High Court. This
Court held that the High Court was not right in dismissing
the writ petition as not maintainable. It was held that the
only remedy available with the aggrieved person was to
challenge the award of the Lok Adalat by filing a writ
petition under Article 226 or/and Article 227 of the
Constitution of India in the High Court and that too on
very limited grounds. The case was accordingly remanded to
the High Court for deciding the writ petition filed by the
aggrieved person on its merits in accordance with law.
2
(2018) 13 SCC 480
11
23. This is what their Lordships held in para 12:
(Jalour Singh case [State of Punjab v. Jalour Singh,
(2008) 2 SCC 660: (2008) 1 SCC (Civ) 669: (2008) 1 SCC
(Cri) 524: (2008) 1 SCC (L&S) 535], SCC p. 666, para 12)
"12. It is true that where an award is made
by the Lok Adalat in terms of a settlement arrived
at between the parties (which is duly signed by
parties and annexed to the award of the Lok
Adalat), it becomes final and binding on the
parties to the settlement and becomes executable
as if it is a decree of a civil court, and no appeal
lies against it to any court. If any party wants to
challenge such an award based on settlement, it
can be done only by filing a petition under Article
226 and/or Article 227 of the Constitution, that
too on very limited grounds. But where no
compromise or settlement is signed by the parties
and the order of the Lok Adalat does not refer to
any settlement, but directs the respondent to
either make payment if it agrees to the order, or
approach the High Court for disposal of appeal on
merits, if it does not agree, is not an award of the
Lok Adalat. The question of challenging such an order
in a petition under Article 227 does not arise. As already
noticed, in such a situation, the High Court ought to
have heard and disposed of the appeal on merits."
The Apex Court holds that an award would become executable if it
is passed on a joint memo, only when the parties have signed the
joint memo. The award would be the award passed by the Lok
Adalat.
12
10.3. The High Court of Kerala, in the case of SUNANDA v.
SUNDARAN3, in identical circumstances where the parties had not
affixed their signature to the settlement, has held as follows:
".... .... ....
7. Now the question to be considered is as to whether it
is necessary that all the parties must sign the Award or not.
8. For answering the said question, it is necessary to
read Clause (2), Clause (5) and Clause (6) of Regulation No.
17 of the National Legal Services Authority (Lok Adalats)
Regulations, 2009 (for short 'the Act'), which can be extracted
hereunder:
"17. Award. -- (1) xxxxxxxxxxxx
(2) When both parties sign or affix their
thumb impression and the members of the Lok
Adalat countersign it, it becomes an award (see a
specimen at Appendix f 1). Every award of the Lok
Adalat shall be categorical and lucid and shall be
written in regional language used in the local
Courts or in English. It shall also contain
particulars of the case viz., case number, name of
Court and names of parties, date of receipt,
register number assigned to the case in the
permanent Register (maintained as provided
under Regulation 20) and date of settlement.
Wherever the parties are represented by counsel, they
should also be required to sign the settlement or award
before the members of the Lok Adalat affix their
signature.
(3) xxxx xxxx xxxx
(4) xxxx xxxx xxxx
(5) Members of the Lok Adalat shall ensure
that the parties affix their signatures only after
3
2020 SCC OnLine Ker.25970
13
fully understanding the terms of settlement
arrived at and recorded. The members of the Lok
Adalat shall also satisfy themselves about the
following before affixing their signatures.
(a) that the terms of settlement are not
unreasonable or illegal or one - sided; and
(b) that the parties have entered into the
settlement voluntarily and not on account of
any threat, coercion or undue influence.
(6) Members of the Lok Adalat should affix their
signatures only in settlement reached before them and
should avoid affixing signatures to settlement reached
by the parties outside the Lok Adalat with the assistance
of some third parties, to ensure that the Lok Adalats are
not used by unscrupulous parties to commit fraud,
forgery, etc..
(7) xxxx xxxx xxxx
(8) xxxx xxxx xxxx"
9. Clause (2) of Regulation No. 17 of the Act would
make it clear that the members of the Lok Adalat can sign
the award only after the parties putting their signature or
affixing their thumb impression on the award. When the
parties sign and the members sign, it becomes an award.
It further appears from Clause (2) that if the parties are
represented by counsel, they should also be required to sign the
agreement/Award before the members of the Lok Adalat affix
their signature.
10. It is clear from Clause (5) that the members of
the Lok Adalat must ensure that the parties sign the
agreement only after fully understanding the terms of the
settlement. The members of the Lok Adalat must also
ensure that the terms of settlement are not unreasonable
or illegal or one - sided and that the parties have entered
into the settlement voluntarily and not on account of any
threat, coercion or undue influence.
11. Clause (6) would make it clear that the members of
the Lok Adalath will sign only the settlement reached by the
14
parties before the Lok Adalat and not in the settlement reached
by the parties outside the Lok Adalat.
12. It is clear from the above provisions that the
settlement or agreement must be arrived at by the
parties before the members of the Adalat. This would
show that the parties must be present beforethe Lok
Adalat in person. The parties must also sign the Award
after understanding the terms of settlement. The
members of the Lok Adalat must ensure that the
settlement was arrived at by the parties voluntarily and
not on account of any threat, coercion or undue influence.
For the said purpose also, the presence of the parties
before the Lok Adalat is necessary. The sum and
substance of the above discussion, is that if an Award is
passed in the absence of the parties, the members of the
Lok Adalat do not get any opportunity to ascertain from
the parties as to whether they have signed the
Award/settlement after understanding the terms of the
Award/settlement or not and also as to whether they
have entered into the settlement voluntarily or not and
hence, the Award passed in the absence of the parties
cannot be said to be legal and correct.
13. In this case, since the petitioners did not sign the
Award, it has to be held that the petitioners were not present
when the award was passed by the Lok Adalat on 14/01/2011.
The operative portion of the award is extracted hereunder:
"The matter settled as per the compromise
petition filed by the parties, which is attached herewith."
14. It is clear from the award that the award was
passed on the basis of a compromise petition produced
before the Adalat. The said compromise petition was not
signed by the parties in the presence of the members of
the Lok Adalat. It is incumbent on the part of the
members of the Lok Adalat to ensure that the members of
the Adalat will affix their signature only in the settlement
or agreement reached by the parties in their presence.
That means, the members of the Adalat must ensure that they
will not sign any agreement reached outside the Adalat by the
parties. The members would also ensure that the parties
15
understand the terms of the agreement fully before affixing
their signature on the award."
10.4. After the judgment of the High Court of Kerala, the
Apex Court in KIRTI v. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY
LIMITED - (2021) 2 SCC 166 holds that a concession made by a
counsel would not bind the parties, as the Advocate cannot throw
away legal rights of the clients or enter into arrangements contrary
to the interest of the clients. This is followed by the High Court of
Kerala in K.R.JAYAPRAKASH v. STATE OF KERALA4, wherein it is
held as follows:
".... .... ....
14. Another contention taken by the learned Government
Pleader relying on Regulation 39 of the Regulation, 1998 is that
as lawyers are permitted to appear on behalf of the clients and
since the respective lawyers who have appeared for the
petitioners before the Lok Adalat have affixed their signature,
this could be taken as a consent on the part of the petitioners to
the award passed by the Lok Adalat. Petitioners have a
specific case that they have not signed the awards
impugned and therefore the same is not based on the
consent of the petitioners. The question to be considered
is as to whether affixture of the signature by the lawyer
in the award could be binding on the petitioners. I have
already referred to the provisions of the Regulations
2009 which specifically mandates that both parties and
the members of the Lok Adalat shall affix their signature
then only it becomes an award. Regulation 17 further
mandates that wherever the parties are represented by
4
2023 SCC OnLine Ker. 4486
16
counsel they should also be required to sign the
settlement or award before the members of the Lok
Adalat affix their signature and therefore it is incumbent
that both the parties as well as the lawyers should affix
their signature. Therefore signature of the lawyer alone
in the award cannot validate the terms of the settlement
as per the award. The Apex Court has considered the
impact of a wrong concession given by a lawyer on the
parties. The Apex Court in Himalayan Coop. Group
Housing Society v. Balwan Singh, (2015) 7 SCC 373 held
that a wrong concession/
statement/admission/compromise/settlement made
without obtaining instructions/authority from the clients
will not bind on the client. A similar view was reiterated
by the Apex Court in Kirti v. Oriental Insurance Company
Limited, (2021) 2 SCC 166 which held that any
concession of law made by counsel would not bind the
parties as an advocates cannot throw away legal rights or
enter into arrangements contrary to law. In view of the
specific provision in Regulation 17 as stated above and in
the light of the judgments above quoted, I am of the
opinion that the contention of the learned Government
Pleader that since the lawyers have affixed his signature
in the awards that by itself cannot validate the award or
make the petitioners bound by the awards."
(Emphasis supplied at each instance)
The High Court of Kerala holds that a wrong concession, statement,
admission, compromise and settlement made without obtaining
instructions/authority from the clients will not bind the clients.
11. The joint memo is quoted hereinabove. It is clear from
the joint memo that the claimants have not affixed their signatures.
17
It is only the Advocates of both sides and the representative of the
Insurance Company who have affixed their signatures. The learned
counsel for the petitioners has placed a memo of what would be the
compensation to the family of the deceased, taking the year of
death as 2012. According to her, it would be ₹14,64,600/-. What is
awarded is half of it. Be that as it may, since the claimants have not
signed the joint memo, I deem it appropriate to set aside the award
of the Lok Adalat and restore the appeal to its file to be heard on its
merits.
12. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
(i) Writ Petition is allowed.
(ii) Order dated 13-07-2019 passed by the High Court
Legal Services Committee at Dharwad Bench before the
Lok Adalat in M.F.A. No.100905 of 2014, Lok Adalat
No.2267 of 2019 stands quashed.
(iii) M.F.A. No.100905 of 2014 stands restored to file for
disposal in accordance with law.
Pending I.A.No.1 of 2025 also stands disposed.
SD/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
bkp
CT:SS
