WP(C) 8054/2003 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B. P. KATAKEY The petitioner, by present petition, has challenged the order dated 20 December 2002 passed by the learned Member, MACT, Kamrup at Guwahati in MAC Case No.1047/ 2002, whereby and where-under the said proceeding has been settled at Rs.15,000/ - as compensation, at Lok Adalat, on the ground that the parties have mutually settled for a just and reasonable amount of Rs.15,000/- as compensation. Heard Ms B Devi, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr S Dutta, learned cou nsel for the respondents. None appears for the other respondents. It is the contention of the petitioner that for the injuries sustained by him in a vehicular accident occurred on 29 April 2002 arising out of the use of a vehi cle bearing registration No.AS-01/3551 (TATA bus), he filed an application under Section 166 of MV Act 1988 praying for compensation, which proceeding has been registered as MAC Case No.1047/2002. According to the petitioner, while he was p ursuing with said proceeding, he came to know from his lawyer that the same was closed on 20 December 2002, purportedly on compromise, in a Lok Adalat by awardi ng an amount of Rs.15,000/- as compensation, even without issuing any notice to him. It is also the contention of learned counsel that the petitioner never authorize d the learned counsel to compromise the matter on his behalf. It is the further contention of learned counsel that prior to referring the matter to Lok Adalat f or settlement, he was even not informed. Learned counsel for the respondent insurance company has submitted that in view of the provisions of Order 3 Rule 1 of CPC since the party includes authorized r epresentatives and the advocate, a compromise can be effected by the advocate on behalf of the party and hence, there is no illegality in the order dated 20 Dec ember 2002, there being a written compromise between the parties, which is annex ed as annexure-B to the writ petition. To a pointed query made, learned counsel for the insurance company, coul d not apprise this Court as to whether any notice before or after referring the matter to Lok Adalat for settlement and prior to taking up the matter by Adalat was issued to the petitioner. It appears from the materials made available that the petitioner filed a n application under Section 166 of the Act claiming compensation for the injurie s sustained by him in a vehicular accident occurred on 29 April 2002, which has been registered as MAC Case No.1047/2002. It appears from the order dated 20 Dec ember 2002, which is under challenge, that such proceeding was taken up in the L ok Adalat held on that day and the same was closed directing payment of Rs.15,00 0/- as compensation, purportedly on basis of a mutual settlement arrived at betw een the parties. The petitioner has made a statement on oath that he has neither been inf ormed about the reference of the dispute to a Lok Adalat nor has been served wit h any notice thereof. Such statement on oath has not been denied by any of the p arties by filing affidavits. Hence, it remains un-rebutted, and therefore has to be treated as true. Section 19 of Legal Services Authorities Act 1987 authorizes the State A uthority or District Authority or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee or every High Court Legal Services Committee or, as the case may be, Taluk Legal Se rvices Committee to organize Lok Adalats at such intervals and places and for ex ercising such jurisdiction and for such areas as it things fit. Sub-section(5) o f Section 19 provides that Lok Adalat shall have jurisdiction to determine and t o arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties to a dispute in respe ct of - (i) any case pending before; or (ii) any matter which is falling within the jurisdiction of, and is not brought before, any court for which the Lok Adal at is organized: provided that the Lok Adalat shall have no jurisdiction in resp ect of any case or matter rrelating to an offence not compoundable under any law . Sub-section (1) of Section 20 provides that where in any case referred t o in clause (i) of sub-section (5) of section 19, (a) the parties thereof agree; or (b) one of the parties thereof makes an application to the court, for referr ing the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement and if such court is prima facie s atisfied that there are chances of such settlement; or the court is satisfied th at the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the lok Adalat, the court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat. Proviso to sub-section (1) st ipulates that no case shall be referred to Lok Adalat under sub-clause (b) of cl ause (i) or clause (ii) by such court except after giving a reasonable opportuni ty of being heard to the parties. It, therefore, appears that Section 20 of the Act requires at least givi ng notice to the parties concerned for referring the matter to Lok Adalat for se ttlement, which has not been done in the instant case. Even the petitioner was n ot informed that his case would be taken up on 20 December 2002 for disposal by the Lok Adalat. That being the position, the order dated 20 December 2002 passed by lear ned Member, MACT, Kamrup at Guwahati, is set aside. The question as to whether a n advocate has the authority to effect a compromise on behalf of the party witho ut the knowledge of the party, being not required has not been gone into in the present proceeding. The learned Member, MACT, Kamrup at Guwahati, would take up MAC Case No. 1047/2002 and decide the same in accordance with law after giving due notice to all concerned. However, since the petitioner and respondent No.4 are before this Court through their learned counsel, no notice is required to be issued to them , who shall appear before learned Tribunal on 15 February 2011, for taking neces sary orders. The writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs .