URMILA DEVI Vs. MOTOR VEHICLE CLAIM TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUNIL Ambwani, J. Heard Shri A. S. Diwakar, learned counsel for the petitioners.

(2.) THIS writ petition seeks to set aside an order dated 9. 9. 1988 passed by VIIIth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Varanasi rejecting the application to set aside the compromise dated 12. 12. 1987 filed in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 40/1986 in the Lok Adalat on the ground that petitioner's counsel Shri Radhey Mohan Srivastava was competent to sign the compromise and that the provisions of Order XXIII Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure are not strictly applicable to the proceedings of Motor Vehicles Act.

(3.) THE petitioner had engaged Shri Radhey Mohan Srivastava as her counsel on 12. 12. 1987. She received a notice from the police station for appearing in the matter on 13. 12. 1987, which was a Sunday. On the next date she was informed that the Lok Adalat was held on the previous day i. e. , on the Sunday on 12. 12. 1987. She claims that her counsel, without ensuring her presence and her consent, had entered into a compromise in the Lok Adalat with the insurance company for a lump sum payment of only Rs. 45,000/ -.