R. R. K. TRIVEDI, J.

( 1 ) NOTICE of this case was taken on 25. 3. 1992 by this court in exercise of suo motu powers under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, on the basis of a news item published in english daily newspaper, the Times of India, Lucknow, of the date 13. 3. 1992 with the heading all for 30,000 pieces of silver. By order dated 17. 4. 1992 the learned District Judge, Hamirpur, was directed to submit his report to this court along with the record of the case. In pursuance of this order, learned District Judge submitted his report dated 12. 5. 1992 along with the record of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Case No. 42/70 of 1990.

( 2 ) FROM a perusal of the record, the facts giving rise to this case are that one Manju Gupta, aged about 3 years, met with an accident on 19. 3. 1985, at 4. 30 p. m. in front of her house near Mandi barrier, Sumerpur. In this accident, she lost both of her legs. She was treated at District Hospital, hamirpur and ultimately at Lala Lajpat Rai Hospital, Kanpur. She remained in this hospital in the Department of Orthopaedics from 10. 4. 1985 to 6. 7. 1985, as is clear from the discharge slip filed as paper No. 30 Ka-1 on record. The claim petition was filed on 27. 2. 1989 along with an application for condonation of delay. After hearing the parties, the application for condoning the delay was allowed and delay was condoned by an order dated 15. 12. 1990 and thus the case was registered as Accident Claim Petition No. 42/70 of 1990. The break-up of the claim made in the claim petition is as under:

( 3 ) RS. 13,000/- as expenses incurred in treatment of Manju Gupta.

( 4 ) RS. 7,000/- as conveyance charges in coming and going from Sumerpur to Hamirpur and kanpur.

( 5 ) RS. 2,00,000/- as compensation for loss of both the legs of the claimant as she has been rendered handicapped for whole of life.

( 6 ) THUS, the total claim made was for Rs. 2,20,000/ -.

( 7 ) THE claim petition was resisted by filing written statement by the National Insurance Co. Ltd. on various grounds and the quantum of compensation claimed was also disputed. During the pendency of the case, however, a Lok Adalat was held at Hamirpur on 19. 1. 1992. On this date a compromise was filed by father of Manju Gupta stating that the entire claim of the claimant had been settled for Rs. 30,000/- which shall be paid by the insurance company and the claim petition may be decided on the basis of the compromise. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, thereafter, the same day, passed the award deciding the claim on the basis of the aforesaid compromise and on the basis of this award, a decree was prepared and signed on 5. 2. 1992. The national Insurance Co. Ltd. on 2. 3. 1992 moved an application and filed the cheque No. 011254 of the date 11. 3. 1992 for the amount of Rs. 30,000/- before the court which was accepted by the court and it was directed to be deposited in State Bank of India on 26. 3. 1992.

( 8 ) WHILE taking notice of the case by this court by order dated 25. 3. 1992 it was observed that in a claim petition on behalf of minor, no settlement or compromise could be arrived at without leave of the court as required under Rules 6 and 7 of Order 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The learned District Judge in para 6 of his report clearly mentioned that no leave of court was obtained before entering into the settlement/ compromise and the mandatory provisions of Rule 7 of Order 32 were not complied with. The Lok Adalat was presided over by the learned 4th additional District Judge, Mr. R. N. Ram, who was also the Presiding Officer of the Motor accidents Claims Tribunal. However, this aspect of the case was unfortunately ignored.

( 9 ) I have perused the record and from the compromise application dated 19. 1. 1992 and the order-sheet dated 19. 1. 1992, it is clear that the provisions of Rule 7 of Order 32, Civil Procedure code, were not at all complied with. It cannot be denied that the amount of Rs. 30,000/- was gross

Click Here to Read the rest of this document