SONIYA vs SHINDER SINGH
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11500
WP No. 202490 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030066382026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
TH
DATED THIS THE 27 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
WRIT PETITION NO. 202490 OF 2026 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT.SONIYA
W/O VINOD TRIPATHI
AGE: 47 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
2. AYESHA @ AISH
S/O VINOD TRIPATHI
AGE: 25 YEARS,
OCC: STUDENT
3. ANUSHA S/O VINOD TRIPATHI
AGE: 23 YEARS,
OCC: STUDENT
ALL ARE R/O EARLIER AT BHILWAD,
RAJASTHAN
NOW RESIDING AT KC NAGAR,
SOLAPUR ROAD
VIJAYAPUR,
DIST: VIJAYAPUR
…PETITIONERS
Digitally signed
by SWETA
KULKARNI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
(BY SRI. YASHAS S. DIKSHIT., ADVOCATE)
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11500
WP No. 202490 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030066382026
AND:
1. SRI.SHINDER SINGH
S/O PRIRAM SINGH
AGE: 52 YEARS,
OCC: TRANSPORT BUSINESS,
R/O NO.63, MECHANIC NAGAR,
INDORE, INDORE-452001
MADHYA PRADESH
2.
THE BRANCH MANAGER
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
BEHIND SRI. SIDDESHWAR TEMPLE
SS CROSS ROAD,
HERALAGI BUILDING, VIJAYAPUR
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.SANJAY M. JOSHI ADV., FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN
THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE AWARD DATED
26-07-2016 PASSED BEFORE THE DISTRICT LEGAL SERVICE
AUTHORITY, VIJAYAPURA IN MVC NO.703/2014 WHICH IS
PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-D; OR ISSUE ANY OTHER ORDER AS
MAY BE DEEMED FIT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11500
WP No. 202490 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030066382026
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
ORAL ORDER
This writ petition is filed seeking the following
prayers:
“ Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing
the award dated 26-07-2016 passed before the District
Legal Service Authority, Vijayapura in MVC No.703/2014
which is produced at Annexure-D in the interest of justice.
OR
Issue any other order as may be deemed fit in the
interest of justice. ”
2. Sri. Yashas S Dikshit, learned counsel appearing
for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had filed a
claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Vijayapur (‘the M.A.C.T.’ for short) seeking compensation.
In the said proceedings, the M.A.C.T., passed an award on
the basis of a joint memo, which was never signed by the
claimants. It is further submitted that the award was
passed without the consent of the claimants, as they had
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11500
WP No. 202490 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030066382026
neither agreed to the terms of the compromise nor signed
the joint memo. Hence, he seeks to allow the writ petition.
3. Learned counsel further submits that the very
same claimants had filed a claim petition before the
competent Tribunal in Rajasthan and had received
compensation therein. In view of the same, the petitioners
intend to withdraw MVC.No.703/2014 filed before the
M.A.C.T., Vijayapur. The said submission is placed on
record.
4. Per contra , Sri. Sanjay M Joshi, learned counsel
appearing for respondent No.2 – Insurance Company
vehemently opposes the writ petition and submits that,
during the pre-conciliation proceedings, the claimants had
agreed to the compensation amount, pursuant to which
the joint memo was prepared and placed before the Lok-
Adalath, whereupon the award came to be passed. He
further submits that the claimants cannot now resile from
the terms agreed upon during the conciliation proceedings.
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11500
WP No. 202490 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030066382026
He also submits that, notwithstanding the absence of the
claimants’ signatures on the joint memo, the award is
binding on them, as they had participated in the
conciliation process. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the writ
petition.
5. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners, learned counsel appearing
for respondent No.2 and meticulously perused the material
available on record.
6. The petitioners had filed a claim petition under
Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which was
numbered as MVC.No.703/2014 before M.A.C.T.,
Vijayapur. In the said proceedings, respondent No.2 -
Insurance Company filed its detailed written statement.
Thereafter, the matter was referred to the Lok-Adalath,
which proceeded to pass the impugned award dated
26.07.2016, mainly on the ground that the joint memo
was filed. It is not in dispute that the said joint memo was
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11500
WP No. 202490 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030066382026
not signed by the claimants. A perusal of the joint memo
at Annexure-D to the writ petition indicates that the same
bears the signature of the Insurance Company’s Official
but does not bear the signature of the claimants. Based on
such unsigned joint memo of the claimants, the award
came to be passed, which is required to be interfered.
Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
allowed
i) The writ petition is .
ii) The impugned award dated 26.07.2016
passed by the Lok-Adalath in
MVC.No.703/2014 on the file of the
M.A.C.T., Vijayapur, is set aside.
iii) In view of the submission made by the
learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners, MVC.No.703/2014 filed by the
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11500
WP No. 202490 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030066382026
petitioners before the M.A.C.T., Vijayapur is
disposed as withdrawn.
iv) If any amount has been deposited by
respondent No.2 – Insurance Company
pursuant to the impugned award, the same
shall be returned to respondent No.2 –
Insurance Company.
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE
PHM
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5