Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
K.P. Mohapatra, J.
BRAJA KISHORE SAHU - APPELLANT
Versus
PARAM JYOTI SINHA AND ANOTHER - RESPONDENT
M.A. No. 313 of 1988
Decided On : 01-11-1989
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - COMPROMISE - VALIDITY - AUTHORITY OF COUNSEL - REQUIREMENTS - CPC ORDER 23, RULE 3 - CPC ORDER 32, RULE 7 - ORISSA MOTOR VEHICLES (ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNALS) RULES, 1960, RULE 20 - INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION.
Fact of the Case:
Appellant, a minor, was involved in an accident and filed a claim petition before the Tribunal. During the proceedings, a compromise was reached in a Lok Adalat, and an award was passed accordingly. The appellant challenged the award, arguing that the compromise was not valid as it was not signed by him or his father guardian and that his counsel did not have the authority to enter into the compromise.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the compromise was not valid as it did not comply with the requirements of Order 23, Rule 3 of the CPC, which requires that a compromise must be in writing and signed by the parties. The court also found that the appellant's counsel did not have the authority to enter into the compromise as he did not have a special vakalatnama authorizing him to do so.
Issues: 1. Whether the compromise was valid? 2. Whether the appellant's counsel had the authority to enter into the compromise?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the compromise was not valid as it did not comply with the requirements of Order 23, Rule 3 of the CPC, which requires that a compromise must be in writing and signed by the parties. The court also found that the appellant's counsel did not have the authority to enter into the compromise as he did not have a special vakalatnama authorizing him to do so. 2. The court held that the appellant's counsel did not have the authority to enter into the compromise as he did not have a special vakalatnama authorizing him to do so.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned award and the order confirming the compromise, and remanded the claim case to the Tribunal for disposal in accordance with law.
JUDGMENT :
K.P. Mohapatra, J. - The appellant has challenged the order of compromise dated 6.12.1987 passed by the Second Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (referred to as 'the Tribunal') making an award of Rs. 12,000/- as compensation in favour of the appellant.
2. Facts may be stated in brief. The appellant was aged 15 years studying in the High School. He was involved in an accident which took place on 16.5.1985 on the road which runs between Paradip and Cuttack near village Barti caused by a motor car belonging to respondent No. 1 and insured with respondent No. 2. As a result of the accident, he suffered injuries and underwent prolonged treatment as an indoor patient at the S.C.B. Medical College Hospital, Cuttack. He filed the petition before the Tribunal u/s 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, (referred to as 'the Act') through his father guardian claiming compensation of a sum of Rs. 40,000/- for mental shock, loss of study, medical expenses and loss of all hopes for leading a normal life. The respondents filed written statements denying the appellant's claim. In due course the case was posted for hearing to 1.12.1987. On that day the parties were not ready and the counsel for the appellant, Mr. S.K. Mohanty, applied for adjournment which was allowed and the hearing of the case was adjourned to 25.3.1988. On the same day a petition for compromise was filed before the Tribunal the text of which is quoted below:
We the above applicant(s) and above-named insurance company have arrived at compromise to settle the above-mentioned claim petition at Rs. 12,000/- (Rupees twelve thousand) only in full satisfaction of the claim. No coercion or force or temptation has been made to any of the parties. We request the Hon'ble Tribunal to record compromise today itself and pass an award accordingly. We further state that the insurance company above-named is willing to issue a cheque for the said amount within two months of the passing of the award.
Sd/-
Signature of the applicant
Sd/-
Signature of the insurer
Sd/-
Sarat Kr. Mohanty
[Signature of the advocate
for the applicant(s)]
Sd/-
[Signature of the advocate
for the insurer]
3. It will appear from the compromise petition that it was signed by the appellant's counsel Mr. S.K. Mohanty, the insurer and its advocate. It was not signed by the appellant nor by his father guardian. On 5.12.1987 Mr. Mohanty filed a petition stating as follows:
(1) That the petitioner claimed Rs. 40,000/-in Col. 21 of the claim application.
(2) That the petitioner wants to reduce the claim amount to Rs. 15,000/- which maybe inserted in Col. 21 of the claim application.
PRAYER
The petitioner prays that your honour would be pleased to allow the petition.
And for this act of kindness the petitioner as is duty bound shall ever pray.
PROPOSED AMENDMENT
In Col. 21 Rs. 40,000/- may be deleted and in its place Rs. 15,000/- may be inserted.
4. The petition was not signed by the appellant nor by his father guardian. It was placed before the Tribunal on 6.12.1987 although as earlier stated the case was posted for hearing to 25.3.1988. The Tribunal passed the following order:
Misc. Case No. 252 of 1985
The counsel for the petitioner filed a petition for reducing the claim amount to Rs. 15,000/-. Heard. Prayer is allowed.
Record is put up today consequent upon a compromise arrived at in the Lok Adalat and duly signed by the parties and their counsel. The terms being read over and explained, are admitted to be correct by them. The compromise is recorded and O.P. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. is directed to pay Rs. 12,000/- to the petitioner Braja Kishore Sahu within two months hence. The compensation when realised be kept in shape of unencumbrable fixed deposit for a term of 5 years in a scheduled bank for the benefit of interest.
Sd/- Illegible
6.12.1987
Second Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal
5. On 17.6.1988 through another advocate the appellant filed a petition stating therein that without his knowledge,
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
