IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.1222 of 1991 (O&M) Date of decision:20.01.2011 Sarwan Singh ....Appellant versus Shri Palwinder Singh and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: None for the appellant. None for respondents 1 and 2. Mr. R.M. Suri, Advocate, for the Insurance Company. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? Yes. 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? Yes. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? Yes. ---- K.Kannan, J.(Oral) 1. There is no representation for the appellant when the matter is called. The case is of the year 1991 and I do not think it is possible to adjourn the case to await the presence of the counsel or dismiss it for default and I proceed to dispose of the case on merits. 2. The appeal is at the instance of a claimant seeking for enhancement of compensation after an award was passed in terms of compromise between parties. The compromise records the fact that the claimant was to be paid Rs.25,000/- in full quit for the injuries suffered by him. In the grounds of appeal urged, it is stated that the claimant's injury had aggravated and it was suggested that a hip replacement had to FAO No.1222 of 1991 (O&M) - 2 - be done. A Tribunal that passes an award does so on the materials placed and on the representation made. If an award is passed on a compromise, unless the compromise itself is vitiated by any of the circumstances which the law admits of, there could be no ground for an appeal. The appeal, in my view, is not maintainable and the remedy of the claimant ought to have been for recalling the order or setting aside the compromise itself if the compromise award was not in any way tenable. The provision for an appeal under Section 173 must still satisfy the requirements of law providing for an appeal where the award appealed against is capable of being assailed. I would hold that the provisions of 96(3) of the Civil Procedure Code will be attracted also to an appeal filed under Section 173. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 20.01.2011 sanjeev