Hon’ble Sunil Ambwani, J.—Heard Shri A.S. Diwakar, learned counsel for the petitioners.

2. This writ petition seeks to set aside an order dated 9.9.1988 passed by VIIIth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Varanasi rejecting the application to set aside the compromise dated 12.12.1987 filed in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 40/1986 in the Lok Adalat on the ground that petitioner’s counsel Shri Radhey Mohan Srivastava was competent to sign the compromise and that the provisions of Order XXIII Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure are not strictly applicable to the proceedings of Motor Vehicles Act.

3. The counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 2 and 5 died during the pendency of the writ petition. Shri Atul Mehra appearing for respondent No. 3 has not cared to appear on any of the dates fixed in the matter. Now the office reports that steps have been taken and that the notices were again sent but the unserved notice or acknowledgment has not returned back. No one appears for the respondents and thus the matter was heard ex-parte.

4. The petitioner’s husband died on 25.1.1986 in a road accident. She alongwith her two minor children filed a claim petition for an award of Rs.12 lacs on the ground that her husband was 34 year’s old and was engaged in the business of Kharadi when he died. He was a skilled employee holding diploma in Refrigeration & Air-Conditioning. He was also a diploma holder from Board of Technical Education, U.P. in Mechanical Engineering and was carrying on his skilled profession at a large scale. He had a monthly income of Rs. 1500/- per month.

5. The petitioner had engaged Shri Radhey Mohan Srivastava as her counsel on 12.12.1987. She received a notice from the police station for appearing in the matter on 13.12.1987, which was a Sunday. On the next date she was informed that the Lok Adalat was held on the previous day i.e., on the Sunday on 12.12.1987. She claims that her counsel, without ensuring her presence and her consent, had entered into a compromise in the Lok Adalat with the insurance company for a lump sum payment of only Rs. 45,000/-.

6. The application was dismissed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal on the ground that in Gaya Prasad Singh v. Sheomurat Singh, 1981 ACJ 328, it was held that a compromise reduced in writing and signed by the advocates of the parties is a valid compromise and a decree can be passed on its basis and that it was not necessary that it was to be signed by the parties alone. It was further found that the provisions of Order XXIII Rule 1, C.P.C. are not applicable to the proceedings in the Motor Vehicles Act. Rule 21 of the Motor Vehicles Act does not make the provisions of Order XXIII Rule 1 of the CPC applicable to the proceedings.

7. Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code was amended by Act No. 104 of 1976. By the amendment the words ‘in writing and signed by the parties’ were added after the words ‘lawful agreement or compromise’. The amendment was made in terms of the amendments made by the Allahabad High Court published in U.P. Gazette dated 31.8.1974. The object of the amendment was to avoid any dispute with regard to the validity of the agreement or compromise. By the same amendment a proviso was also added giving powers to the Court to decide the question, if it is alleged by one party and denied by the other that an adjustment or satisfaction has been arrived at but no adjournment was to be granted for the purposes of deciding the question unless the Court for the reasons to be recorded thinks fit to grant such adjournment. The explanation provided that the agreement or compromise which is void and voidable under the Indian Contract Act, 1872 shall not be deemed to be lawful within the meaning of the rule.

8. In Som Dev and others v. Rati Ram and another, AIR 2006 SC 3297, the Supreme Court held in para-8 as follows :

“8. After the amendment of the Code of Civil Procedure by Act 104 of 1976, a compromise of a suit can be effected and the imprimatur