Read Judgment : https://lawyerslibrary.in/books/bcsk/

Citation: 2025 KER 32571
Court: High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam
Judge: Honourable Mr. Justice C.S. Dias
Date of Number: W.P (C) No. 38403 of 2024; April 16, 2025
Parties: Vaisakh A Nair v. The Managing Director, KSRTC & Ors.

Motor Accident Claim – Fraudulent Lok Adalat Award.

Petitioner alleged impersonation in prior claim petition (O.P.(M.V.) No.712/2018) and Lok Adalat award (Ext.P5) – Significant discrepancy in signatures – Advocate involved deceased – Ext.P5 award quashed – O.P.(M.V.) No.712/2018 restored and consolidated with O.P.(M.V.) No.1753/2018 for joint trial – Tribunal directed to investigate impersonation and dispose of claims within six months.

Importance of verifying party identity in Lok Adalat proceedings emphasized – Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, Sections 20, 21 – Fraud vitiates judicial acts.

Facts

The petitioner, Vaisakh A Nair, filed a writ petition challenging a Lok Adalat award (Ext.P5) in O.P.(M.V.) No.712/2018, claiming it was fraudulently obtained through impersonation. He was a claimant in O.P.(M.V.) No.1753/2018 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Palakkad, seeking compensation for injuries sustained in a bus collision on November 29, 2017, involving a KSRTC bus (KL-15-9579) driven by the 2nd respondent and insured by the 3rd respondent (New India Assurance Co. Ltd.). The 3rd respondent argued that the petitioner had settled a prior claim (O.P.(M.V.) No.712/2018) for Rs.32,000 via Ext.P5 award, rendering the second claim invalid. The petitioner denied filing O.P.(M.V.) No.712/2018, alleging it was filed by an impostor through Advocate K. Jelly, who was later found deceased. The High Court noted discrepancies in signatures between the two claim petitions and Ext.P5 award. The Tribunal confirmed the advocate’s death, and the award amount remained unwithdrawn.

Issues

1. Whether Ext.P5 Lok Adalat award in O.P.(M.V.) No.712/2018 was vitiated by fraud and impersonation.
2. Whether the petitioner could pursue O.P.(M.V.) No.1753/2018 despite the prior award.
3. Whether the Tribunal should investigate the authenticity of O.P.(M.V.) No.712/2018.

Holding and Reasoning

The Court held that Ext.P5 award was liable to be quashed due to prima facie evidence of fraud, including signature discrepancies and the petitioner’s assertion of non-involvement in O.P.(M.V.) No.712/2018. Citing precedents like State of Punjab v. Jalour Singh [(2008) 2 SCC 660] and K. Srinivasappa v. M. Mallamma [(2022) 17 SCC 460], the Court noted that Lok Adalat awards can be challenged under Article 226/227 for fraud. The Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (Sections 20, 21) and National Legal Services Authority (Lok Adalats) Regulations, 2009, mandate identity verification to prevent fraud, which was not adequately done. The Court emphasized that fraud unravels judicial acts (Usha K. v. Renjith [W.A.No.125/2024]). The deceased advocate’s unavailability prevented verification, necessitating a trial. The Court quashed Ext.P5, restored O.P.(M.V.) No.712/2018, and ordered its consolidation with O.P.(M.V.) No.1753/2018 for joint trial, directing the Tribunal to investigate impersonation and dispose of both claims within six months.

Disposition

• Ext.P5 award quashed.
• O.P.(M.V.) No.712/2018 restored and consolidated with O.P.(M.V.) No.1753/2018.
• Tribunal to investigate who filed O.P.(M.V.) No.712/2018 and take action if impersonation is proven.
• Deposited award amount to be refunded to the 3rd respondent.
• Kerala State Legal Services Authority directed to issue guidelines for identity verification in Lok Adalat proceedings.

Significance

The case underscores the importance of verifying party identities in Lok Adalat proceedings to prevent fraud and impersonation, reinforcing that fraudulent awards are void. It highlights the Court’s supervisory role under Article 226/227 to correct such injustices and sets a precedent for consolidating related claims to resolve disputes efficiently.

Multiple Choice Questions (MCQs)

1. What was the primary issue in W.P (C) No. 38403 of 2024 before the Kerala High Court?
   a) Dispute over insurance policy terms
   b) Alleged fraud in a Lok Adalat award due to impersonation
   c) Validity of a motor vehicle registration
   d) Negligence by KSRTC in bus maintenance
   Answer: b) Alleged fraud in a Lok Adalat award due to impersonation
2. What action did the Kerala High Court take regarding the Ext.P5 Lok Adalat award?
   a) Upheld the award as valid
   b) Quashed the award and restored O.P.(M.V.) No.712/2018
   c) Modified the award amount
   d) Referred the award back to Lok Adalat for reconsideration
   Answer: b) Quashed the award and restored O.P.(M.V.) No.712/2018
3. Which legal provision governs the procedure for Lok Adalats to take cognizance of cases?
   a) Section 20 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987
   b) Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
   c) Section 12 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
   d) Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
   Answer: a) Section 20 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987
4. Why was the advocate involved in O.P.(M.V.) No.712/2018 impleaded as a respondent?
   a) To represent the petitioner in the writ petition
   b) To verify the authenticity of the claim petition and award
   c) To pay the compensation amount
   d) To testify against the insurance company
   Answer: b) To verify the authenticity of the claim petition and award
5. What did the Court direct the Tribunal to do regarding the two claim petitions?
   a) Dismiss both petitions due to fraud
   b) Consolidate and jointly try O.P.(M.V.) Nos.712/2018 and 1753/2018
   c) Refer both petitions to a different Tribunal
   d) Settle both petitions through mediation
   Answer: b) Consolidate and jointly try O.P.(M.V.) Nos.712/2018 and 1753/2018

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

1. What was the basis for the petitioner’s challenge to the Lok Adalat award (Ext.P5) in this case?
   The petitioner, Vaisakh A Nair, challenged the Ext.P5 award claiming it was obtained fraudulently through impersonation. He denied filing O.P.(M.V.) No.712/2018 or signing the award, alleging that someone else had impersonated him, and there were significant discrepancies in the signatures across related documents.
2. Why did the Kerala High Court quash the Ext.P5 Lok Adalat award?
   The Court quashed the Ext.P5 award due to prima facie evidence of fraud, including discrepancies in the petitioner’s signatures in O.P.(M.V.) No.712/2018, Ext.P5 award, and O.P.(M.V.) No.1753/2018. The Court also noted the inability to verify the claimant’s identity due to the death of the advocate involved and emphasized that fraud vitiates judicial acts.
3. What role does the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, play in this case?
   The Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, particularly Sections 20 and 21, governs the procedure for Lok Adalats to take cognizance of cases and pass awards. The Court referenced these provisions to highlight the requirement for verifying party identities and ensuring settlements are consensual and free from fraud.
4. What instructions were given to the Tribunal regarding the two claim petitions?
   The Tribunal was directed to restore O.P.(M.V.) No.712/2018, consolidate it with O.P.(M.V.) No.1753/2018 for a joint trial, investigate who filed the former petition, and dispose of both claims within six months. The Tribunal was also instructed to take action if impersonation was proven and refund the award amount deposited by the insurer.
5. What broader impact did the Court’s judgment have on Lok Adalat proceedings?
   The Court directed the Kerala State Legal Services Authority to issue guidelines ensuring that Lok Adalats verify the identity of parties before settlements to prevent fraud and impersonation. This aims to reduce fraudulent awards and subsequent litigations, reinforcing the integrity of Lok Adalat proceedings.