Madhya Pradesh High Court
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Through ... vs Priyanka on 29 August, 2025
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:24107
1 WA-1521-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE JAI KUMAR PILLAI
ON THE 29th OF AUGUST, 2025
WRIT APPEAL No. 1521 of 2023
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. THROUGH CURRENT
DIVISIONAL MANAGER NARENDRA TILKAR
Versus
PRIYANKA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Pradip Kumar Gupta, learned counsel alongwith Shri Bhashkar
Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant
Shri Sachin Parmar, learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 to 6.
Shri Abhishek Tugnawat, learned counsel for the respondent no.8.
ORDER
Per: Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla
The present intra-court appeal is filed under section 2(1) of THE
MADHYA PRADESH UCHCHANYAYALAYA (KHAND NYAY PITH
KO APPEAL) ADHINIYAM, 2005 being aggrieved by the order dated
14.08.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP No.11572/2023,
whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed.
2. The respondent nos.1 to 6 filed a claim under the Motor Vehicle
Act claiming compensation on account of death of Kamal Bheel. After the
notice, a settlement arrived at between the parties and the claim was placed
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:24107
2 WA-1521-2023
before the Lok Adalat. The claimant and the appellant/insurance company
has agreed to pay Rs.13,50,000/- to the claimants and, accordingly, an award
dated 12.11.2022 was passed. After the period of four months the Insurance
Company filed an application seeking recall of the award on the ground that
the respondent no.7 was driving the truck without permit on the date of
incident therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the
compensation.
3. It was further submitted that after passing of the award, till date,
neither the permit nor fitness certificate was submitted to the Insurance
Company, therefore, it is presumed that at the time of accident, the vehicle
was driven in violation of permit and fitness certificate.
4. The Tribunal rejected the application that a pre-signed docket
form was submitted on a Lok Adalat held on 12.11.2022 without any
pressure and fear and accordingly the award was passed. There was no
ground to cancel the said award and dismissed the application.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that a fraud was
placed on the part of the claimants as the entire documents relating to permit
etc were not supplied to the Insurance Company. After considering the the
aforesaid submission of both the parties, learned Single Judge held that the
claim was disposed of in the Lok Adalat on the basis of a compromise
arrived at between the claimants and the Insurance Company. The docket
was submitted before the Lok Adalat. It is not a case where the parties appear
before the Court and discussed the matter thereafter, the settlement arrived.
In the present case, the settlement was arrived in the office of Insurance
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:24107
3 WA-1521-2023
Company. They signed the settlement deed and submitted by way of docket
before the Lok Adalat and on the basis of the pre-signed docket an award
was passed.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant relied on the judgment passed
by the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and Anr Vs. Jalour Singh
and Ors reported in (2008) 2 SCC 660, Oriental Insurance Company Vs.
Deepak Goyal and Ors reported in 2014 SCC Online MP 72, United India
Insurance Vs. Smt. Meena and Ors reported in 2014 SCC Online MP 2568.
7. The aforesaid judgments would not render any assistance to the
facts of the present case. The Apex Court in the case of Jalour Singh (supra)
as held as under :-
"12. It is true that where an award is made by 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."
8. From the aforesaid, it is clear that an award on the basis of a
settlement in Lok Adalat can be challenged under Article 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India but on very limited grounds:-
1. Where no compromise or settlement is signed by
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:24107
4 WA-1521-2023
the parties.
2. The order of Lok Adalat does not refer to any
settlement, despite that directs the respondents either to
make payment it it agrees or approach the High Court
for disposal of the appeal on merits, if it does not agree,
is not an award of the Lok Adalat.
9. It is not the case of the appellant that there was no agreement or
settlement between the parties.
10. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any case for interference
in the present intra-court appeal.
11. Accordingly, the present appeal stands dismissed.
No order as to costs.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA) (JAI KUMAR PILLAI)
JUDGE JUDGE
Sourabh
