OP. NO.32704/20012.RAGHAVAN PILLAI,PALAVILAYIL VEEDU,PADINJARE PURAYIL, CHANGAYILULAVAKKADU MURI, PALAMEL VILLAGE.3.LOK ADALATH v. NationalInsurance Co.Ltd.(2008(1) KLT 705)
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
Original petition is disposed of as above
Provisions considered
Judgment
OP. NO.32704/20012.RAGHAVAN PILLAI,PALAVILAYIL VEEDU,PADINJARE PURAYIL, CHANGAYILULAVAKKADU MURI, PALAMEL VILLAGE.3.LOK ADALATH TALUK LEGAL SERVICE COMMITTEE,MAVELIKARA. BY ADV. MR.R.PADMAKUMAR FOR R THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CMP. NO.53304/2001 IN OP. NO.32704/2001DISMISSED25.05.2009SD/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGEAPPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 18.12.93 IN OS. 209/93 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT,HARIPAD.P2:- COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OS. 209/93 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, HARIPAD.P3:- COPY OF THE AWARD OF THE LIK ADALATH, TALUK LEGAL SERVICE COMMITTEE,MAVELIKARA DT. 17.12.99.P4:- COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT FILED IN AS. 101/94 DT. 17.12.99.P5:- COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER DT. 11.4.01 IN IA. 413/2000 AND IA. 414/2000 IN AS.NO.101.94.P6:- COPY OF THE ORIGINAL COMPROMISE PETITION DT. 17.12.99 BEFORE THE LOKADALATH.P7:- COPY OF THE AWARD DT. 17.12.99 OF THE LOK ADALATH IN A.S. 101/94.TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGETSS ANTONY DOMINIC, J.================OP NO. 32704 OF 2001 (R)=====================Dated this the 25th day of May, 2009 J U D G M E N TPetitioners seek to get Exts.P3, P4 and P5 quashed. They arealso seeking a direction for the restoration of AS 101/94 on thefile of the Additional District Court I, Mavelikkara for disposal onmerits. 2.According to the petitioners, they are the wife andchildren of late Sri. Ramachandran Pillai, who had originally filedthis original petition. The deceased was the plaintiff in OSNo.209/93 on the file of Munsiff's Court, Harippad. The suit wasdecreed against respondents 1 and 2 and Ext.P1 is the judgment.It would appear that the respondents 1 and 2 filed AS No.101/94on the file of Additional District Court, Mavelikkara. It wouldappear that during the pendency of the appeal, the matter wasreferred to the Lok Adalat conducted by District Legal ServicesAuthority, Alleppey. 3.It would appear that the matter was accordinglyreferred to the Lok Adalat where Ext.P4 compromise petition wasfiled on the basis of which the Lok Adalat passed Ext.P3 award. OP No.32704/01:2 :Late Sri. Ramachandran Pillai filed this original petition mainlycontending that he did not sign Ext.P4 compromise petition orExt.P3 award nor did he authorise his counsel to sign Exts.P3 orP4. It is his case that without his consent, his counsel signed theaforesaid documents and invited Ext.P3 award, which is adverseto the interest of the deceased. 4.In this context, it is also to be mentioned thatimmediately on coming to know of Exts.P3 and P4, the deceasedapproached the Additional District Court I Mavelikkara where AS101/94 filed by respondents 1 and 2 was pending and soughtreview of Ext.P3. However by Ext.P5 order, the District Court heldthe application to be not maintainable particularly in view of theprovisions contained under the Legal Services Authorities Act,1987. It is thereupon that the deceased filed this original petitionand on his expiry, his legal representatives have come on recordas the petitioners.5.The contention raised by the counsel for the petitionersis mainly that the deceased had not signed either Exts.P3 or P4and in view of this, Ext.P3 award is non-est in law. He has referredme to Regulation 33(1) of the State Legal Services Authority OP No.32704/01:3 :Regulations 1998, which provides that every award of the LokAdalat shall be signed by the parties to the dispute and the panelconstituting the Lok Adalat. He also relied on the judgmentrendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Leela v. NationalInsurance Co.Ltd.(2008(1) KLT 705). 6.As already noticed both Exts.P3 and P4 show that thedeceased, the predecessor of the petitioners herein, is not asignatory to either of the two documents. If that be so, there ispatent non compliance with Clause 33(1) of the Regulations 1998and in that view of the matter and also particularly in the light ofthe principles laid down by the Division Bench in the judgmentreferred to above, the award is to be taken as non-est in law. Consequently, Ext.P3 will stand quashed and it is directed that itwill be open to the petitioners to produce a copy of this judgmentbefore the District Legal Services Authority, Alappuzha, whichshall decide the matter afresh in accordance with the provisionsof the Act and with notice to all the parties concerned. Original petition is disposed of as above.ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGERp
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Original petition is disposed of as above
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Kerala High Court, on 25 May 2009. The bench was ANTONY DOMINIC, RUE COPY P A JUDGETSS ANTONY DOMINIC.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No treatment data yet for this judgment in the Courts & Cases corpus.
Absence of data is not a statement about the judgment’s standing — the corpus covers only judgments we index and link with cited evidence.