The interpretation of 'signed by parties' under Order 3 Rule 1 of CPC and the authority of counsel or recognized agents to enter into a compromise on behalf of the parties.

JUDGMENT

Vikas Bahl, J. (Oral). - CM-5110-CII-2021

The present application under Section 151 C.P.C. has been moved for early hearing of the matter and disposing of the same in terms of the compromise between the appellant-claimant and applicant-respondent No.3. It has been stated in the application that the main case has been admitted and during the pendency of the main case, the applicant-Insurance Company has made an offer for settlement of the present case by way of payment of enhanced compensation. It has also been stated that the compromise has been entered into wherein the applicant-Insurance Company has made offer to the claimant counsel for settlement of the case and an amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- over and above the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal has been agreed to be paid.

Reliance has also been placed upon a writing dated 23.03.2021 annexed as Annexure A-1. A perusal of the same would show that Sh. Vivek Chuahan, counsel for the appellant-claimants has written to the Manager- respondent No.3 and has stated that on instructions from his client they are accepting the proposed enhanced compensation of ` 4,00,000/- as full and final settlement of claim in the aforesaid appeal on behalf of the appellant. A prayer has been made to issue the drafts in the name of the appellants as detailed in the said Annexure. In the application, the drafts as desired by the counsel for the claimants has also been annexed as Annexure A-2.

Learned counsel for applicant-respondent No.3 has undertaken to hand over the said drafts to the counsel for the claimants within two days from today and has further stated that the said drafts would be honoured. Counsel for the claimant is satisfied with the said statement. It is common case of both the counsels that the amount which was awarded by the Tribunal has already been paid to the claimants.

In view of the facts stated herein-above, the main appeal is taken up on Board for hearing today itself.

CM stands disposed of.

FAO-2890-2008

This Court has seen the averments made in the application as well as the documents attached alongwith the same by the learned counsel for Insurance Company. After considering all the said relevant facts, this Court is satisfied that the compromise which has been effected is genuine and bona fide and is for the benefit of the claimants and would help in finally disposing of the matter. Although, there is no written compromise by the appellants themselves but their counsel has signed the letter Annexure A-1 and the authenticity of the said letter has not been disputed, rather, its veracity has been affirmed even during the course of the proceedings by the learned counsel, Sh. Vivek Chauhan.

In the present case, two affidavits of the two appellants Debo Devi, appellant No.1 and Mohan Lal, appellant No.2 have been submitted to this Court which are taken on record as Mark 'X' and Mark 'Y'. A perusal of the said affidavits would show that it has been affirmed by both the appellants that the matter has been compromised with the Insurance Company for an amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- as full and final settlement of their claim, over and above the amount awarded by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambala. It is further stated that the claimants have already given the consent for compromise to their counsel and that drafts in pursuance of the same have also been prepared. It has been averred that since the matter has been settled, therefore they do not want to pursue the aforesaid appeal and the same may be disposed of as per the said settlement.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pushpa Devi Bhagat (through L.R. Smt. Sadhna Rai) Vs. Rajinder Singh and others, (2006) 5 SCC 566, while considering the aspect as to whether “signed by parties” would also include signature of the recognized agent or his pleader held that the words “by parties” refer not only to parties in person but their attorney holders or duly authorized pleaders also.

Paragraph 23 of the said judgment is reproduced herein-bel