Kochi: The Kerala High Court has directed the State Legal Services Authority to issue necessary guidelines to all the District Legal Service Authorities (DLSAs)/ Lok Adalats to verify the identity of people involved in legal settlements, especially before they start settlement talks or pass any order.

Justice C S Dias passed this direction after a party claimed that an advocate had initiated and settled an accident claim in 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 parties who are not accompanied or represented by counsel. The court added that Lok Adalats must ensure that no forgery is committed even when a counsel represents and identifies parties.

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 sought 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 the 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 The amount was deposited before the Tribunal but it had not been withdrawn till date.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 Advocate 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 also 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 a 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.
(With LiveLaw inputs)