G. Narendar, J.

The appellants are the claimants before the MACT-III Bijapur, in MVC No. 71/2004. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dismissing the claim petition the claimants are before this Court.

2. The parties are hereinafter referred to by their rank before the tribunal.

3. The facts of the case are that;

The case of the claimants is that on 19.01. 2003 at about 11.00 a.m. their son Ibrahim aged about 30 years was returning from Suragihalli by walk. As he was walking along the road, the offending vehicle 407 Tempo bearing registration No. KA-28/3877 came from the opposite direction and knocked down their son. It is alleged that vehicle was being driven in a rash and negligent manner and at a high speed and on account of the impact their son Ibrahim suffered grievous injuries and that he was shifted to S.P. Institute of Neuroscience at Solapur, where he was treated by one Dr. Shirish Walsankar and several tests and check-up like scanning, X-ray, Chemical check-up etc., were conducted and despite the treatment given, the condition of their son had not improved and hence the doctor suggested to them that patient be shifted to Pune for higher treatment and their son was shifted in an Ambulance but enroute their son succumbed to the injuries sustained in the accident. The deceased was working as a High School Teacher and drawing a monthly salary of Rs.7,300/- and that he was the lone bread winner and the parents have lost their loving and obedient son and a pillar of support in their old age. Their son was a double graduate and had service of at least 28 years and would have achieved remarkable advancement in his career and would have at least become Head Master or even Block Education Officer. That the first respondent is the owner of the vehicle and the second respondent is insurer and vehicle been duly insured and the second respondent is bound to satisfy any award it may be passed. Upon service of notice the first respondent remained absent and is placed exparte. The second respondent appeared through their counsel and filed their written statement. It was contended that the petition is vexatious and frivolous and contrary to law and facts and deserves to be dismissed with cost without going into any merits of the case.

4. It was denied that the offending vehicle was involved in the accident, the age, occupation and income of the deceased was also denied. He denied that the accident occurred on account of the negligence and that the accident was proximate cause of death or that the claimants are dependants of the deceased. That the claim amount is exorbitant and the liability is subject to the permit of the vehicle and driving license of the driver being valid as on the date of the accident. Thereafter, the tribunal by its order dated 15.03.2005 framed three issues;

1. Whether the petitioners prove that, the deceased Ibrahim died in the accident on 19.1.2003 at about 11:00 hours on Balaganur-Banthanal road, near Suragihalli village due to rash and negligent driving of the Tempo bearing Reg. No. KA-28/3877 by its driver?

2. Whether petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, how much?

3. What order or award?

5. By order dated 09.09.2005 the matter was referred to the Lok Adalath and was taken up by the Lok Adalath. Both the parties and the advocates for the parties were present and the parties mutually agreed to settle the claim for a sum of Rs. 5,50,000/- along with interest @ 6%. The said order has been recorded by the Lok Adalath comprising of the Additional District Judge, Bijapur and Conciliator Sri. C.V. Kadi. It appears that thereafter the counsel for the petitioner filed an application under Section 151 of CPC for recalling the award passed on 09.09.2005, mutually settling for a sum of Rs.5,50,000/-. The application was moved seeking for enhancement of the award amount. The Lok Adalath, to which application was referred without going into the legality of such an application appears to have recalled th