Impersonation Of Litigant? Kerala High Court Asks Lok Adalats To Verify Identity Of Parties Before Commencing Settlement Proceedings
The Kerala High Court has directed the Kerala Legal Services Authority to issue necessary guidelines to all the District Legal Service Authorities (DLSAs)/ Lok Adalats to ensure that the identity of the parties is ascertained before commencement of the settlement proceedings and passing an award. Justice C. S. Dias passed this direction after a party made a claim that an advocate had...
The Kerala High Court has directed the Kerala Legal Services Authority to issue necessary guidelines to all the District Legal Service Authorities (DLSAs)/ Lok Adalats to ensure that the identity of the parties is ascertained before commencement of the settlement proceedings and passing an award.
Justice C. S. Dias passed this direction after a party made a claim that an advocate had initiated and settled an accident claim on his name, without his knowledge.
As per Regulation No. 16 of the National Legal Service Authority (Lok Adalats) Regulation 2009, the Lok Adalat is required to verify the identity of the party when they are not accompanied or represented by a counsel.
The High Court added that Lok Adalats need to ensure that no forgery is committed even when parties are represented and identified by a counsel.
The Court also referred to the division bench decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court in Yalamarthi Narasimha Rao v District Legal Services Authority (Lok Ayukta) Krishna and others (2022) where the Lok Adalats were directed to verify the identity of the parties after noting that parties were being impersonated and their signatures were being forged.
As per the claimant in this case, he came to know about the settlement in his name only after he filed his case before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. He claimed compensation saying that a KSRTC bus collided with the bus in which he was travelling and he suffered serious injuries from the accident. The insurance company objected to the claim saying that the petitioner had already filed the same petition before the Tribunal and the matter was settled before Lok Adalat.
The Court on enquiry found that a petition was filed in the name of the petitioner before the Tribunal through an advocate named K. Jelly. The matter was finally settled in Lok Adalat where the insurance company agreed to pay Rs. 32,000 to the claimant. The amount was deposited before the Tribunal but it had not been withdrawn till date. The High Court sent a notice to the Adv. K. Jelly but it was found out that the advocate had expired.
The Court said that prima facie there is a significant discrepancy in the signature of the claimant in all the previous proceedings. The Court said that since the counsel who attested the vakalat is no more, it was impossible to verify the issues through him. The Court said the matter should be verified through trial.
The Court quashed the order of the Lok Adalat and sent the matter back to the Tribunal to be tried with the petitioner's claim petition. Meanwhile, it ordered the Tribunal to refund the amount already deposited by the insurer. The Court added that the Tribunal should look into who had filed the earlier petition and take necessary action if it is found that the claimant was impersonated.
Counsel for the Petitioners: Advocates A. R. Nimod, M. A. Augustine
Counsel for the Respondents: Advocates P. C. Chacko, Rajan P. Kalliyath, Lal K. Joseph
Case No: WP(C) 38403 of 2024
Case Title: Vaisakh A Nair v The Managing Director, KSRTC and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 263