✦ Madras High Court

HIGH COURT LEGAL SERVICES COMMITTEE v. TERMS OF SETTLEMENTBoth the parties and their respective counsel are present.2.The above

B GOKULDAS, DISTRICT2 min read

Case at a glance

Bench
B GOKULDAS, DISTRICT

Outcome

Disposed of

The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of accordingly

Key paragraphs

  • Para 33. Parties have now arrived at a settlement, by which the Insurance Company is agreed to pay a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four lakhs only ) over and above the award amount passed by the tribunal and in full quit to the respondent, within a…

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 (Rtd) C.M.A.No.1876 of 2024 (Against the award and decree passed on 13.09.2023 made in M.C.O.P.No.1839 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (V Court of Small Causes), Chennai.G.Narayanan... AppellantVs.

1.

G.Gunasekaran2. United India Insurance Company Limited, Motor Third Party Claim Cell (hub), O.No.40/42, New No.134, 2nd Floor, Siling Building, Greams Road, Chennai-06 ... RespondentsThis case came up for settlement before the National Lok Adalat. Both the parties are present. The learned counsel for the appellant, Mr.K.Varadha Kamaraj and the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent M/s.P.Sankara Narayan are present. After mutual discussion, negotiation, mediation and conciliation between both parties, they arrived at a compromise to settle the matter as follows:TERMS OF SETTLEMENTBoth the parties and their respective counsel are present.

2.

The above appeal has been preferred by the claimant challenging the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis quantum of amount awarded by the Tribunal.

Operative part

3.

Parties have now arrived at a settlement, by which the Insurance Company is agreed to pay a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four lakhs only ) over and above the award amount passed by the tribunal and in full quit to the respondent, 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.4,00,000/-, less the amount already deposited before the Tribunal, if any, 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. On such deposit, the claimant shall be entitled to withdraw the award amount as per the ratio of apportionment made by the Tribunal. 5. 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. G.NarayananCounsel for the Appellant1. G.Gunasekaran2. United India Insurance Company Limited, Motor Third Party Claim Cell (hub), O.No.40/42, New No.134, 2nd Floor, Siling Building, Greams Road, Chennai-06 Counsel for the 2nd Respondent 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, (V Court of Small Causes), Chennai. 2. The Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee, Chennai. 3. The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court, Madras.

4.

The Section Officer, Lok Adalat Section, High Court, Madras.+2 copies https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis B.GOKULDAS.,J.Gvn/jaiCMA.No.1876 of 202414.09.2024

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.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Madras High Court or eCourts case status. ← Search more judgments