HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR B: Hdh’blg Shri Justice R. L. Jhanwar, .,A.-.-No.466'of,2ooz ET 1 APPELAN : NON-APPLIcANT Mohd. Ashif Versus Kanwal Ram " i‘REsPoNDEN ORDER or Pronouncement of-Order 23/.21 -1 020 Sci/- R.L. Jhanwar _‘ % Li i Judge 3/ .02201 1; E A “a N S M T F Q @ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SB: Hon’ble Shri Justice R. L. Jhanwar, M. A. No.466 of 2002 APPELLANT : Mohd. Ashif, S/o Gulam Bai, Caste- NON-APPLICANT Musalman, age 28 years, Occupation- Business, R/o Shitalapara, Kanker, Dist. Kanker (C.G.) (owner of vehicle) Versus av, counsel for the appellant, ORDE (Passed was .02.2011) This is owner's appeal direciing against the orderdated 2~1 02.2002 ' passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kanker in Claim Case No. l l l l l l 16/2000 awarding compensation of Rs.68,000/- in favour of the i respondent/claimant and against the appellant/owner. ‘2. As against the compensation of Rs.5,91,000l- sought by the claimant by filing claim petition under Section 163 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the death of Shambhuram in the motor accident on 10.03.1998, the Tribunal has, on close scrutiny of the evidence, material placed and l l submissions made by the respective parties, held that on the date of l l accident i.e. 10.03.1998 the Shambhuram died due to use of tractor No. l MB. 23 JI6916 owned by the appellant and awarded sum of Rs.68,000/- i with interest at 6% per annum from the date of tiling of claim petition till H realization. lt is this order, which is under challenge by the owner of the . tractor. l 3. Shri Subhash Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently 1 argued that since the earlier claim petition of the respondent/claimant was " aiready dismissed on the ground of compromise already took place between the parties out of Court, the claim petition tiled theréafter cannot be maintainable in any Court in view of Order 23 Rule 3 of the C.P.C. He further argued that the learned Claims Tribunal ought not to have entertained the second claim petition and straightway dismissed the same. lt was also argued that the compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal is on higher side. ' ’ 4. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant, l have perused the i i’ecprd of the Court below including impugned order. 5. The claimant is unfortunate father. Admittedly. Shambhuram was driving the offending tractor on 10.03.1998. On instructions of the owner of the offending tractor, Shambhuram was going to take labour from Lakhanpuri. Unfortunately, the said offending tractor turned turtle and the Peceased fell down and died. At the time of accident, he was unmarried and was earning Rs.1200/-. A perusal of record would clearly reveal that earlier one claim petition was tiled which was registered as claim case No.71/98. A perusal of order sheet dated 16.12.1998 would clearly reveal that counsel for the claimants and respondent — Mohd. Ashif (appellant herein) had, without there being any document, informed the Court that the case is settled and compromise has taken place out the of the Court, and therefore, they do not want to prosecute the case and prayed that claim case No.71/98 should be dismissed and accordingly on the basis of dral submission of the counsel for the parties, claim case No.71/98 was - dismissed. lt is also clear from the perusal of order sheet dated 16.12.1998 in claim case No. 71/98 that parties to the claim were not prayed and the claim case was dismissed as prayed by the advocates. lt is, also apparently evident from the order sheet dated 16.12.98 that only oral request was made by the advocate but no document thereof was pljace prioduced out of by the them Court. about the compromise alleged to have been taken 6 So far as the contention that once any compromise has taken place then no party could have come against that compromise until and unless the same is found fraud during compromise is concerned, after perusal of amended Order 23 Rule 3 o the C.P.C., it is clear that the compromise should be in writing and also borne by the signatures of the parties i.e. \ plaintiff and defendants and in the absence thereof, it is presumed that no compromise has taken place. Thus, it is clear that in the absence of written compromise, no counsel could have made oral request that the parties arrived at out of court compromise. According to order dated 16.02.1998 passed in claim case No. 71/98, the advocates appearing on behalf of the parties made oral argument that compromise took place betWeen the parties out of court, without there being submitted any document thereof. ln this connection, the evidence of N.A.W.1 i.e. Mohd Ashif. appellant herein, is very crystal clear. He has specifically stated in ‘his evidence that he himself had not arrived at any compromise with the claimants and had not signed on compromise deed He also admitted that compromise was done by hrs father but hrs father was not a party in the claim case No 71198 Savrtrr Bar A W1 In her evrdence has also stated that she had neither received even singie penny nor had compromised the matter previously Thus it is clear that no compromise was ever taken {place between the parties In claim case No 71198 m accordance wrth law Even if it Is held that compromise had taken place between the parties ‘ then It rs of no use because the compromise alleged to have been taken , place between the parties as rs evrdent from the evrdence of N AW1 i Mohd Ashrf was at the Instance of father of Mohd Ashrf who got the r clarm case No 71/98 and that no document thereof was produced before rthe Tribunal Hence the contention that once any compromise has taken place then no party could have come agarnst that compromrse untri and ‘uniess the same rs found fraud durrng compromrse has no force l r l r l matter compromised out of the Court and hrs father was not a party to l :7. As regards the present clarm case the learned Tribunal has rightly held that mere oral rnformatron berng brought to the Court that the parties i wanted to make compromrse out of the Court rs not brndrng on the partres iyet the compromrse whatever should be In wrrtrng and that should be i s borne by the srgnatures of both the partres. The learned Trrbunal has rightly dealt with the same in its paragraphs 21 to 24 and thoroughly Edrscussed the same rn accordance wrth law Therefore i do not find any 5 i rliegalrty rn such fndrng and thus calls for no interference ‘8 So far as compensation of Rs.68,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is pn higher side is concerned, the learned Claims Tribunal has taken the i i ' income of the deceased at Rs.1000/- per month and after deducting one- half therefrom determined annual income of the deceased at Rs.500/-. Taking into account the age of the deceased, on the date of incident, as- 20 years, as per post-modem report, assessed the total dependency at Rs.60,000/-. By adding RS;6000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.2OOQ/- towards funeral expenses, the Tribunai worked out the total compensation of Rs.68,000l- for the death of Shambhuram in the motor accident. l am of the considered opinion that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just, and reasonable compensation in the facts and V circumstances & of the case. 9. Fdr the foregoing reasons, l am of the view that the tindings recorded by the Tribunal are purely based on legal, clinchingand reliable evidence sustainable under law. 10. Consequently, the appeal filed by the owner is liable to be and is Sd/— R.L. Jhanwar if“ Judge i 3, hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. l