2025:HHC:28851 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CMPMO No. 358 of 2018. Decided on : 26.08.2025 Anita …Petitioner Versus Pritam Singh and others …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Vijay Kumar Arora, Senior Advocate, with M/s Godawari, Gaurav Kumar, Hitansh Raj and Aastha Kohli, Advocates. For the respondents : Mr. Jagdish Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No.3. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner has assailed order dated 10.03.2018, passed by MACT-II, Sirmaur, District at Nahan, H.P. in MAC Petition No. 284-N/2 of 2014, titled as Anita Devi Vs. Pritam Singh & Ors., in terms whereof, the matter was disposed of by the learned National Lok Adalat in the following terms:- 1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:28851 “Anita Vs. Pritam Singh. 10-03-2018. Present: Shri Amit Semwal, Adv., for petitioner. Shri Wasim Khan, Adv., for respondents No. 1 & 2. Shri V.R. Chauhanl, Adv., for respondent No.3. Sh. Tusharanshu Walia, Legal Manager HDFC ERGO GIC New Delhi in person. This petition is taken before the Bench of National National Lok Adalat. Tusharanshu Walia, Legal Manager HDFC ERGO GIC New Delhi has stated that the Insurance company is ready to pay Rs.50,000/- as full and final compensation amount to the petitioner. His statement to this effect recorded separately and taken on record. Shri Amit Semwal, Adv. Id. Counsel for the petitioner has also agreed to the aforesaid proposal of the Insurance company. His statement to this effect also recorded separately. Keeping in view the statements of the parties, the present claim petition is allowed and the petitioner is awarded a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as full and final compensation in this petition. The awarded amount will be deposited by the Insurance company within 45 days failing which the petitioners shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization. The 3 2025:HHC:28851 statements of the parties shall form part of this order. The amount of interim compensation, if awarded shall be adjusted against the final compensation amount.” 2. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that the Award passed by the learned Tribunal is non est in the eyes of law for the reason that neither the petitioner had consented to the compensation as was offered by the respondent-Insurance Company nor had the petitioner authorized his counsel to accept the same. 3. A pointed query was put to the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner as to whether after the Award was announced by the learned National Lok Adalat, any action was taken by the petitioner against the learned counsel of having committed a fraud upon the petitioner or whether any criminal proceedings were initiated against the learned counsel of the like. To this learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, on instruction, submitted that nothing of this kind was done. 4. Having heard learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for respondent No.3 and having perused the Award passed by the learned National 4 2025:HHC:28851 Lok Adalat, this Court is of the considered view that the Award passed by the learned National Lok Adalat cannot be set aside on the ground as is being urged by the petitioner. 5. The aim and object of Lok Adalats is to settle the issues expeditiously and thus, ease out the rigours of litigation as far as a party is concerned. There is no bar that the learned counsel engaged by a party is not competent to give a statement of settlement on behalf of the party before the Lok Adalat. 6. In terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in State of Punjab and another versus Jalour Singh and others, (2008) 2 Supreme Court Cases 660, though the Award passed by the Lok Adalat can be assailed by filing a petition, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, however, such challenge can be on very limited grounds. Para- 12 of the said judgment reads as under:- “12. It is true that where an award is made by the Lok Adalat in terms of a settlement arrived at between the parties (which is duly signed by parties and annexed to the award of the Lok Adalat), it becomes final and binding on the parties to the settlement and becomes executable 5 2025:HHC:28851 as if it is a decree of a civil court, and no appeal lies against it to any court. If any party wants to challenge such an award based on settlement, it can be done only by filing a petition under Article 226 and/or Article 227 of the Constitution, that too on a very limited grounds. But where no compromise or settlement is signed by the parties and the order of the Lok Adalat does not refer to any settlement, but directs the respondent to either make payment if it agrees to the order, or approach the High Court for disposal of appeal on merits, if it does not agree, is not an award of the Lok Adalat. The question of challenging such an order in a petition under Article 227 does not arise. As already noticed, in such a situation, the High Court ought to have heard and disposed of the appeal on merits.” 7. Thereafter, Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bhargavi Constructions and another versus Kothakapu Muthyam Reddy and others, (2018) 13 Supreme Court Cases 480, has been further pleased to rely upon the said judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court, to reiterate that the Award of the Lok Adalat can be assailed on very limited grounds. 8. Even, the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in its 6 2025:HHC:28851 judgment dated 05.07.2025, titled Shri Jiwan Dass versus Shri Shiv Ram and another, by placing reliance upon the said judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, has been pleased to hold that until and unless the petitioner could demonstrate that the Award was palpably wrong or illegal and not based on a comprise as agreed and recorded, the same could not be interfered with. 9. The facts of this case do not fall within the guidelines as have been carved out by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. At the cost of repetition, this Court observes that herein it is not the allegation of the petitioner that either there was some connivance between the learned counsel engaged by the petitioner and the Insurance Company or some kind of a fraud was played by the learned counsel upon the petitioner. In the absence of these ingredients, in case, this Court starts interfering with the Award passed by the learned Lok Adalat on the reasons as are spelled out in this petition, then it is going to open a Pandora’s box because many persons after the Award has been passed, as an after thought, may come with one cause or the other, assailing the same on the ground that 7 2025:HHC:28851 because the matter was compromised at his behest by his counsel, therefore, the same is not binding at all. 10. Accordingly, in light of the above observations, as this court finds no reason to interfere with the order of the learned National Lok Adalat, the petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge August 26, 2025 (Shivank Thakur)