RASHMI BALA NATH Vs. ANANDA RAM BHARALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these appeals under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, have common feature in as much as, they arise out of awards passed by the Member Motor Accident Claims Tribunal on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties in the Lok Adalat. The claim was settled so far as the Insurer was concerned and allowed to proceed as against the owner, iN both the cases the amount of compensation awarded to Rs 50,000/- based on compromise, in both the cases the interest of minor claimants is involved, in both the cases the Tribunal is the same and despite service of notices, none appears for the respondent insurer in both these appeals pending for almost over five years. It is for this reason that these appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment after hearing the appellants counsel. It is significant to be noted that even according to the learned member "the evidence adduced by the claimant shows that the final award would have been much higher", yet the total compensation awarded is only Rs 50,000/-. Even if a claim is to be settled in a Lok Adalat, on the basis of any compromise arrived at between the parties, it is the duty of the Member of the Tribunal to satisfy himself that the compromise arrived at is just and fair and this duty is all the more enhanced when claimants include minors (as in both these cases), whose interest need to be protected by the court or Tribunal. There is much force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal mechanically accepted the compromise petition sacrificing the interest of the minors and it is mainly for this reason that we are interfering with the impugned awards in both the appeals. Appeal No. 24/93 arises out of award dated 21.2.92 as passed by the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kamrup, Guwahati in claim case No. 27 (K) of 1988. Appeal No. 19/93 is directed against the award dated 29.5.92 passed by the Member Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kamrup, Guwahati in M.A.C. Case No. 105(K)/87. The award is cryptic, it is reproduced hereunder -