INSURANCECOPATNA Vs. MA IBRAHIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 24-5-1986 passed by the District Judge, Chapra in Claim case No. 7 of 1985, allowing the claim in terms of the compromise entered into between the parties.

(2.) The claim case was filed by respondent No. 1. The appellant is the insurer. On 29-8-1982, the son of respondent No. 1, aged about seven years, was killed in an accident by a vehicle bearing registration No. B. R. D. 1045. Respondent No. 1 claimed compensation amounting to Rs. 65,000/-. The appellant and respondent No. 1 settled the claim at Rs. 35,000/- and filed a compromise petition signed by learned counsel for the parties and in terms of the compromise, the claim case was disposed of and accordingly decree sheet, was ordered to be prepared in terms of the compromise.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the compromise petition has not been signed by the parties ; and on account of the amendment in the provision of Order XXIII; Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure a lawful agreement or compromise, before it can be given effect to by recording the ; same, should be signed by the parties themselves and if it is signed merely by learned counsel for the parties, the same cannot be acted upon. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the appellant relied on a decision in Kripal Garain and others v. Shy am Narayan and others, (1985 PUR 315), in which it has been held that for recording compromise, the document should be in writing and signed by the parties and in absence of such a document, the court cannot take notice of such a compromise under Order XXIII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure.