Vimal Kumar Jain vs Bhanwar Lal And Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 7786 Raj/2

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                  BENCH AT JAIPUR

              S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8361/2018

Vimal Kumar Jain S/o Shri Phool Chand Jain, Resident Of 5/216,
Malviya Nagar, Jaipur.
                                                                   ----Petitioner
                                   Versus
1.     Bhanwar Lal S/o Shri Prartap, Resident Of Mundital,
       Rajgarh, District Churu. Driver Of Truck No. Rj 10 G 1492
2.     Madan Singh S/o Shri Bhagirath Mal, Resident Of Ward
       No. 21, Gandhi Nagar, Churu Registered Owner Truck No.
       Rj 10 G 1492
3.     Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Limited,
       Through Branch Manager, Wahite Saphire Building, Near
       Mental Hospital, Jaipur Insurer Of Truck No. Rj 10 G 1492
                                                                ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)         :    Mr. Rizwan Ahmed
For Respondent(s)         :



          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH

                                    Order

13/12/2022

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging

the order dated 24.01.2017 passed by the tribunal whereby the

application for reviewing the order dated 04.03.2016 passed by

the Lok Adalat was dismissed.

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a claim

petition for seeking compensation on account of the injuries

sustained by him in a road accident. During pendency of the

proceedings, an application was filed by the counsel appearing for

the insurance-company as well as claimant before the tribunal for

referring the matter to the Lok Adalat to decide the same on the

basis of compromise arrived at between the parties. On the said

application, the tribunal passed the award on the basis of

(2 of 3) [CW-8361/2018]

compromise between the parties and a sum of Rs.80,000/- was

awarded in favour of the claimant. Thereafter, the claimant filed

an application dated 28.04.2016 for recalling of the order

04.03.2016 which was dismissed by the tribunal vide order dated

24.01.2017. Hence this writ petition has been filed by the

petitioner.

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the advocate of the

petitioner-claimant was not authorised to enter into compromise

with the insurance company and the order dated 04.03.2016 has

wrongly been passed by the tribunal as there were no such

instructions by the petitioner in the matter.

Counsel relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the matter of Himalayan Coop. Group

Housing Society v. Balwan Singh reported in (2015) 7 SCC

373 and further relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the matter of State of Punjab & Anr. v.

Jalour Singh & Ors., reported in (2008) 2 SCC 660 and relied

upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

matter of Kamlesha Devi and Ors. v. Oriental Insurance Co.

Ltd. & Anr. reported in 2005(5) RCE (Civil) 553.

Heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

This writ petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be

dismissed for the reasons; firstly, no action has been taken by the

petitioner-claimant against his advocate who has entered into a

compromise with the insurance company and signed the

compromise on behalf of the claimant; secondly, the claimant has

given his Vakalatnama to his counsel to plead on his behalf before

the tribunal whereupon the award came to be passed on the basis

of the compromise by the Lok Adalat, therefore, in my considered

(3 of 3) [CW-8361/2018]

view, no illegality has been committed by the tribunal in rejecting

the application for review filed by the petitioner vide order dated

24.01.2017 and in the facts and circumstances of the present

case, no case is made out for interference by this Court under

Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Hence, this writ petition stands dismissed.

(INDERJEET SINGH),J

JYOTI /113

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)