Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—The petitioner filed M.A.C.P. No. 578 of 2011 before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Bareilly under Section 163(A) read with Section 140 Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation and damages on account of death of her son Deepak Kumar in motor accident i.e. with collision of Mahindra Max Jeep No. U.P. 25AT/3202 on 6.5.2011. It is said that first information report of the said accident was lodged under Sections 279/338/304A, I.P.C, registered as Case Crime No. 1236 of 2011 dated 15.5.2011 at P.S. Cantt. Bareilly.

2. The aforesaid claim petition was filed by impleading Chola Mandalum M.S. General Insurance Co. Ltd. and Sri Laturi Singh. The Claim Petition has thumb impression of the petitioner. Every page of this claim petition, which is on record as Annexure 3 to the counter-affidavit of respondent No. 4 contains signature and seal of Sri R.M. Singh, Advocate, respondent No. 4 besides the thumb impression of claimant-petitioner. There is a printed Vakalatnama filed alongwith the said application, photocopy whereof has been placed on record as Annexure 3 to the writ petition, which is in the name of R.M. Singh, Advocate in printed proforma but the name of Sri D.K. Saxena has been mentioned by pen. The Vakalatnama contains signatures (thumb impression) of executant namely namely the petitioner and Sri R.M. Singh, Advocate as well as D.K. Saxena, Advocate. Under the signature of Sri R.M. Singh, a seal is also affixed giving his address, phone number etc.

3. The claim petition was presented on 15.7.2011 in the Court of District Judge, Bareilly by petitioner in person duly identified by Sri R.M.Singh, Advocate. The District Judge directed to register the application and sought report of the Munsarim. The order sheet dated 15.7.2011 (at page 26 of Counter-Affidavit of respondent No. 4) contains signature of Sri R.M. Singh, Advocate alongwith his seal. It is, however, not disputed before this Court that on certain dates before the Tribunal Sri D.K. Saxena, Advocate appeared on behalf of the petitioner-claimant and also signed order sheet of the Tribunal.

4. It appears that claimants and the Insurance Company arrived at a compromise to settle the case and therefore presented a compromise before the Court below on 28.2.2012 which was signed on behalf of claimants by Sri D.K. Saxena, Advocate. The copy of compromise has been placed on record as Annexure 4 to writ petition showing that the parties were ready to settle the matter. The defendants were to pay Rs. 2,25,000/- to the claimant i.e. the petitioner. The concerned Additional District Judge i.e. the Court presided by respondent No. 5, in whose Court matter was taken up on 28.2.2012, got the parties identified by their Counsels and thumb impressions of claimants were identified by Sri D.K. Saxena, Advocate. The parties were also present. The claimants were read over the terms of compromise and they accepted to have executed the said compromise as also the terms thereof. These facts were noted by the Court below in order sheet dated 28.2.2012 which reads as under:

^^vkt ;g le>kSrkukek ;kphx.k rFkk foi{khx.k }kjk izLrqr fd;k x;kA ;kphx.k ds fu’kkuh vaxwBs dh f’kuk[r muds vf/koDrk Jh nsos’k dqekj lDlsuk] ,M0 }kjk dh x;hA foi{khx.k dh f’kuk[r muds vf/koDrk Jh lat; dqekj] ,M0 }kjk dh x;hA le>kSrkukek i{kdkjksa dks i<+dj lquk;k x;kA i{kdkjksa }kjk le>kSrkukek dh 'krksZa dks Lohdkj fd;k x;kA^^

English Translation by Court:

“This compromise deed has been presented today by the applicants and opposite parties. Verification of thumb impressions of applicants have been verified by their counsel Sri Devesh Kumar Saxena, Advocate. The thumb impressions of opposite parties were verified by Sri Sanjay Kumar, Advocate. The compromise deed was read over to the parties. The parties agreed to the terms of compromise deed.”

5. The respondent No. 5 in his counter-affidavit paras 6 and 7 has said that this is an office report but was not signed by him since