IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI
(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)
Date of Decision: 4.9.2014
Revision Petition -7/14
| Karun Vashist S/o Sh. R.P. Vashist R/o C-6/83, Chitrakoot Scheme, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan | .........Appellant |
VS
| ICICI Lombard GIC Ltd., -
Barakhamba Road, New Delhi | ………...Respondent |
CORAM
SALMA NOOR, MEMBER
N P KAUSHIK, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
1. Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not?
N P KAUSHIK, MEMBER(JUDICIAL)
- This revision petition be treated as appeal.
2. The present appeal is directed against the order dated 15.1.2014 passed by the District Forum-VI, in Execution No.109/2013. The impugned order is reproduced below:-
None for the Decree Holder
Present Counsel for the JD
“The matter was settled in Lok Adalat on 21.2.2012 for a sum of Rs.6.00 lakhs. Later on DH was agreed on settlement of 80% of IDV Value. Payment of Rs.4,72,288/- already received by DH duly signed by DH in order sheet on 21.2.2012. There is no further execution required. Execution dismissed. File be consigned to R/R.”
- After hearing Counsel for the Appellant Shri Narender Sharma, Advocate this Commission invited comments from District Forum-VI (Order dated 6.5.2014). District Forum sent its comments dated 8.7.2014 which are reproduced below:-
“I have gone through the Hon’ble State Commission order dated 6.5.2014, and perused the relevant records. It is submitted that the Forum organized itself as informal Lok Adalat on 21.2.2012 to take up case for compromise/settlement between the parties. The instant case as per record was settled at Rs.5 lakhs. Thereafter, the Lok Adalat became functus officio, and never reassembled. The record shows that later on parties renegotiated and got the settlement revised to 80% of ID value, and got it recorded by appearing before one of the Member Mrs. Asha Mumar. She, as Member had no authority to unilaterally take up and record variation of settlement amount as order of Lok Adalat. However, since both the parties mutually re-negotiated the settlement, she as Member got it recorded on file.
The D.H. thereafter accepted the renegotiated amount by accepting cheque. He should have mentioned it as part payment or as under protest, if it was not mutually agreed.
Thus in this view of the mater, the execution application of D.H. for remaining amount of Rs.1,27,712/- was dismissed on 15.1.2014”
4. Perusal of the comments submitted by the District Forum-VI shows that the matter has been settled between the parties in a LokAdalat held in District Forum-VI on 21.2.2012. Matter was settled at an amount of Rupees six lakhs. One of the Members of the District Forum, Ms. Asha Kumar unilaterally took up the matter and recorded another settlement. Vide subsequent settlement the matter was settled at 80% of the Insured Declared Value (IDV).
5. Once the matter stood settled in the Lok Adalat on 21.2.2012 there was no occasion for the District Forum to take up the same again. A lone Member of the District Forum had no authority to record the settlement. At least two members of the District Forum must have signed it. All the subsequent proceedings that took up place after 21.2.2012 are illegal and not sustainable in the eyes of law. The same are accordingly quashed. The District Forum to proceed with the execution proceedings, if any, keeping in view the decree passed by it on 21.2.2012.
6. Copy of this order be sent to District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum concerned for information and to keep it on record and compliance and a copy of this order be transmitted to both the parties.
