The Karnataka High Court set aside an award of the Lok Adalat on the ground that the motor accident claimants had not affixed their signatures in the joint memo.

The appeal before the High Court was filed by the claimants challenging the award of the Lok Adalat.

The Single Bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna held, “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.”

Advocate Shiriya S. Katagimath represented the Appellant while Advocate S. K. Kayakamath represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The petitioners, mother and son, were going as pillion riders in the motorcycle of the deceased (father) to a Hospital for the treatment of the son. On the way, in a road traffic accident involving a car and the motorcycle, the father died. A claim petition was filed after the death seeking compensation from the hands of the Insurance Company. The Tribunal awarded a compensation of ₹9,18,600 with interest. The Insurance Company challenged the said award before the High Court. During the subsistence of the appeal, the matter was referred to the Lok Adalat and on the settlement arrived at between the parties, the award amount was reduced to ₹7,82,000 as full and final settlement, which was in reduction of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The petitioners challenged the said award of the Lok Adalat in the subject petition on the score that the petitioners were not even aware that their Counsel had agreed to a settlement to reduce the award amount before the Lok Adalat, and they had not signed the joint memo.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the joint memo admittedly did not bear the signature of the claimants, as the signature portion of the claimants was left blank. The Bench found that only the Advocates of both sides and the representative of the Insurance Company had affixed their signatures.

The Bench referred to the judgment of the Apex Court in Kirti V. Oriental Insurance Company Limited (2021) wherein it has been held 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.

Reference was also made to the judgment of the Kerala High Court in K.R. Jayaprakash v. State of Kerala (2021) wherein it has been held that a wrong concession, statement, admission, compromise and settlement made without obtaining instructions/authority from the clients will not bind the clients.

Thus, allowing the writ petition, the Bench quashed the order passed by the High Court Legal Services Committee at Dharwad Bench before the Lok Adalat. “M.F.A. No.100905 of 2014 stands restored to file for disposal in accordance with law”, it ordered.

Cause Title: Smt. Shaila V. The Managing Director ICICI Lombard GIC Ltd. (Case No: Writ Petition No.102733 OF 2021)

Appearance

Appellant: Advocate Shiriya S. Katagimath

Respondent: Advocates S. K. Kayakamath, Mahesh Wodeyar

Click here to read/download Order


Karnataka High CourtJustice M Nagaprasanna

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.