1 2025:CGHC:46503 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 901 of 2025  Bechu Ram Rajwade S/o Late Shri Samar Sai Rajwade Aged About 23 Years (Now 30 Years), Caste Rajwar, R/o Village Ghughra, Post Katgodi, P.S. And Tahsil Sonhat, District Korea C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Harishchand Sing S/o Shri Shivbaran Singh Aged About 28 Years Caste Gond, R/o Village Fatehpur, Post Sukhari, Ward No. 11, Bhandarpara, P.S. Gandhinagar, District Sarguja (C.G.) (Driver Of Vehicle) 2. Thakur Das S/o Dugru Das R/o Village Manora, Tahsil Pal, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj C.G. (Owner Of Vehicle) 3. Branch Manager, Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office Ambikapur, District Sarguja C.G. (Insurer Of Vehicle) 4. Shashtri Automive Complex, Ram Mandir Road, Ambikapur, District Sarguja C.G. (Respondent) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Bishnu Muni, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 11. 09.2025 1. The petitioner/claimant has filed this petition challenging the award dated 21.09.2024 passed by National Lok Adalat, High Court of Chhattisgarh, whereby Insurance company agreed to pay sum of Rs. 70,000/- in addition to the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal within a period of 60 days and it was accepted by the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Advocate appearing for the petitioner was not instructed to enter into a compromise. He further SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.09.16 18:58:54 +0530 2 submits that on the said date, the petitioner was present in the Court premises, but was not informed by his counsel about the settlement. He also contends that the docket was signed by the counsel for the petitioner. It is also contended that the petitioner has lost his right leg and therefore, an amount of ₹70,000/- settled between the parties was not just and proper. He prays to set aside the award passed by the National Lok Adalat and to restore MAC No. 2198 of 2019 to its original number. 3. I have heard Mr. Bishnu Muni, Advocate at length and perused the documents placed on record. 4. The Advocate who appeared before the National Lok Adalat on 21.09.2024 was authorized by the petitioner to appear in the case. On the said date, the parties settled the matter as the Insurance company was ready to pay an additional sum of Rs. 70,000/- to the petitioner/claimant. The docket was duly signed by the Advocate of the petitioner as well as Advocate of Insurance company. The award was passed on 21.09.2024 and this petition has been filed on 25.08.2025 after 11 months and in para 7, the petitioner has declared there is no delay in filing instant writ petition. 5. Considering the fact that the matter was settled before the National Lok Adalat in presence of Advocates of both the parties and the petitioner has challenged it after 11 months without explaining delay; therefore, no case is made out for interference. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant