VIMALA Vs. R GOVINDASWAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who is the respondent in M.C.O.P.No.1646 of 1989 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Cuddalore, has filed this revision against the order of compromise dated 20.8.1992 in the aforesaid original petition.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that as per the memorandum of compromise the tribunal has recorded compromise without any proof of the same, and that the parties could have been examined before ever the compromise is recorded and since the order being the mechanical one cannot be sustained.

(3.) ON the basis of the above stated principles, I am of the opinion what it is not open to the petitioner at this stage to raise the objection that without the knowledge of the petitioner the compromise has been recorded and the petitioner has signed the compromise memo without knowing the contents of the same.