nIn a recent decision, the Supreme Court has held that the Lok Adalat cannot dispose a case if it does not involve compromise on settlement. The Lok Adalat disposed a case filed by a claimant?s widow holding that the deceased claimant was entitled to pension, although the very question of entitlement was disputed. Setting aside the order, the Supreme Court held inter alia that the Legal Services Authorities Act confers powers on the Lok Adalat to decide those cases which can be disposed by way of settlement or compromise. The High Court was directed to hear the case (State of Punjab & Ors vs Phulan Rani & Anr).

When the holder of a personal accident policy was murdered, his claimants claimed the insured amount. The insurer contended that the amount is not payable as ?murder? is not accident and is not covered under the policy. The Andhra Pradesh High Court held inter alia that since the term ?accident? is not defined, the term should be understood contextually. Murder, which is an unexpected event from the standpoint of the victim, is an accident. Insurance is a contractual obligation and such death is an accident for the purpose of contractual obligation (Manager, United India Insurance Co. vs Ummadi Shakuntala).

The Kerala High Court has held that a hoarding comes within the definition of building as defined in the Municipality Rules as ?any structure for whatever purpose and whatever material constructed?.? The term ?structure? has a wide connotation and includes hoardings, display structures, etc. The question arose for determination when a person engaged in the business of erecting and leasing hoardings received a notice from the Corporation for removal of a particular hoarding (Vimal Arakkal vs Corporation of Cochin).

SOLON