MADHUBALA Vs. H P SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Arun Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Shukla who has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent No. 2, Insurance Company. Inspite of service of notice on respondent No. 1 by all modes, no one has put in appearance on his behalf. The challenge in this petition is to the order passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat dated 29th July 2001 whereby it has proceeded to decide the motor accident claim on the basis of a compromise said to have been entered into by the counsel for the petitioner and the respondent No. 2.

(2.) Sri Sharma contends that the petitioner had never instructed her counsel to enter into a compromise and even otherwise the compromise was against the interest of her minor child and there was no compromise in writing between the petitioner and the contesting opposite party.

(3.) The Permanent Lok Adalat proceeded on the basis of the compromise application bearing exhibit paper No. 22 A and came to the conclusion that in view of the said compromise having been read and explained to the parties, the same deserved to be accepted, as such, the order was passed accordingly on the basis thereof.