HIGH COURT LEGAL SERVICES COMMITTEE v. This National Lok Adalat award is passed in terms of the above
Case at a glance
- Bench
- B GOKULDAS, DISTRICT
Outcome
Disposed of
The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of accordingly
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. Parties have now arrived at a settlement, by which the Insurance Company is agreed to pay a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees eight lakh only) over and above the amount awarded by the Tribunal, in full quit to the claimant, within a period of six…
Judgment
HIGH COURT LEGAL SERVICES COMMITTEE, CHENNAINational Lok Adalat organised by the High Court Legal Services CommitteeSaturday, the 14th day of September, 2024NATIONAL LOK ADALAT AWARD(Chapter VI and u/s 21 of Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987)Presided over by The Hon'ble Mr.JUSTICE B.GOKULDAS (Retd.)ANDMembers 1. Mr.M.Jagan, Legal aid counsel2.Mr.V.Arumugam, District Judge (Retd.)C.M.A.No.88 of 2024(Against the award and decree passed on 08.08.2023 made in M.C.O.P.No.5404 of 2015 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Special Sub Court No.1, Small Causes Court) at Chennai).ChandrasekaranS/o.Thanthondri ... AppellantVs.
K.Akilan2.United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,Silingi Buildings, No.34, Greams Road, Chennai 600 002 .. RespondentsThis case came up for settlement before the National Lok Adalat. Both the parties are present. The learned counsel for the appellant, Mr.Amar Dineshbhai Pandiya and the learned counsel for the second respondent Mr.Sankara Narayanan are present. After mutual discussion, negotiation, mediation and conciliation between both parties, they arrived at a compromise to settle the matter as follows:1/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis TERMS OF SETTLEMENTBoth the parties and their respective counsel are present.
The above appeal has been preferred by the claimant, challenging the quantum of amount awarded by the Tribunal.
Operative part
Parties have now arrived at a settlement, by which the Insurance Company is agreed to pay a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees eight lakh only) over and above the amount awarded by the Tribunal, in full quit to the claimant, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 4. The Insurance Company shall deposit a sum of Rs.8,00,000/-, over and above the amount awarded by the Tribunal, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the Insurance Company agreed to pay interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. 5. On such deposit, the claimant is entitled to receive the entire award amount. The claimant is permitted to withdraw the entire award amount. The Tribunal is directed to follow the usual mode of payment on proper identification of the parties, concerned, in accordance with the terms of the award, without insisting on any formal permission petition. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of accordingly. ChandrasekaranS/o.ThanthondriCounsel for the AppellantUnited India Insurance Co. Ltd.,Silingi Buildings, No.34, Greams Road, Chennai 600 002 Counsel for the second Respondent2/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis This National Lok Adalat award is passed in terms of the above settlement. The Court fee paid shall be refunded to the parties in the manner provided under the Court Fees Act, 1870 as provided for under sub Sec.1 of Section 21 r/w 25 of LSA Act 1987 as amended in 1994.Judge Member MemberToThe parties/Advocate concernedCopy to1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,(Special Sub Court No.1, Small Causes Court at Chennai).2.The Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee, Chennai. 3. The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court, Madras.
The Section Officer, Lok Adalat Section, High Court, Madras.+2 copies3/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis B.GOKULDAS.,J.sai/vcaC.M.A.No.88 of 202414.09.20244/4
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of accordingly
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 — ch. VI; Fees Act, 1870; LSA Act, 1987.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.