STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. versus JALOUR SINGH & ORS.

Citation: [2008] 1 S.C.R. 922 · Decided: 18-01-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.G. BALAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Case Allowed
Cited by 6 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 1 S.C.R. 922 
' 
STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. 
A 
" 
v. 
JALOUR SINGH & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 522 of 2008) 
JANUARY 18, 2008 
B 
(K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI, G.P. MATHUR AND 
R.V. RAVEENDRAN, JJ.) 
,, 
Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987: 
s.20(3) - Lok Ada/at- Order passed by, without consent c 
of judgment debtor- Effect of- Motor Accident Claim -Award 
-Appeal before High Court for enhancement of compensation 
- Referred to Lok Ada/at for settlement- Lok Ada/at enhancing 
. compensation without consent of judgment debtor, with liberty 
to aggrieved party to move the High Court - Application by D 
..; 
iudgment debtor rejected by High Court as not maintainable 
holding that order of Lok Ada/at could be challenged only by 
a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution - Writ petition 
dismissed by High Court holding that order of Lok Ada/at had 
attained finality - HELD: Order of Lok Ada/at was not passed E 
by consent of parties or in pursuance of any compromise or 
settlement between parties - Such an order is not an award of 
Lok Ada/at - Being contrary to law and beyond power and 
iurisdiction of Lok Ada/at, it is void in the eye of law - Single 
Judge of the High Court failed to notice this aspect and instead F 
of perusing order of the Lok Ada/at and hearing appeal on 
merits, proceeded on a baseless assumption that order of Lok 
Ada/at was a binding award and therefore an application to 
hear appeal was not maintainable and the only remedy for 
appellants was to challenge order of the Lok Ada/at by filing a G 
writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution - Order of 
Lok Ada/at shows that it assumed a judicial role, heard parties, 
ignored absence of consensus and increased the 
compensation to an extent it considered just and reasonable, 
by a reasoned order which is adjudicatory in nature - It H 
922 
923 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 1 S.C.R. 
A arrogated to itself the appellate powers of High Court and 
-\ 
..._ 
'allowed' appeal and 'directed' the respondents in appeal to 
pay enhanced compensation - Lok Ada/at exercised a power! 
jurisdiction not vested in it - High Court twice refused to 
exercise jurisdiction vested in it, thereby denying justice and 
s driving the appellants to Supreme Court - Orders of the Lok 
Ada/at and the High Court are set aside - High Court would 
hear and expeditiously dispose of the appeal which continues 
to be pending on its record, on merits in accordance with law. 
Lok Ada/at- Functions and powers of- Nature of- HELD: 
C Lok Adalats have no adjudicatory or judicial functions - Their 
functions relate purely to conciliation -A Lok Ada/at determines 
a reference on the basis of a compromise or settlement 
between parties at its instance, and puts its· seal of confirmation 
by making an award in terms of compromise or settlement -
D When Lok Ada/at is not able to arrive at a settlement or 
compromise, no award is made and the case record is returned 
to the court from which the reference was received, for disposal 
in accordance with law- No Lok Ada/at has the power to "hear" 
parties to adjudicate cases as a court does - It discusses 
E subject matter with parties and persuades them to arrive at a 
just settlement - In their conciliatory role, Lok Adalats are 
guided by principles of justice, equity, fair play - It is true that 
where an award is made by Lok Ada/at in terms of a settlement 
arrived at between the parties, it becomes final and binding 
F on parties to settlement and becomes executable 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 
G very limited grounds - But where no compromise or settlement 
is signed by parties and order of Lok Ada/at does not refer to 
any settlement, but directs a party 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 Lok 
Ada/at- The question of challenging such an order in a petition 
H 
STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. v. JALOUR SINGH & 
924 
ORS. 
under Article 227 does not arise - In such a situation, High A 
Court should hear and dispose of the matter on merits - Lok 
Adalats should resist their temptation to play part of Judges 
and constantly strive to function as conciliators - Endeavour 
and effort of Lok A
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.