IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 315 of 2011 Date of Decision: 20.9.2011. Dalbir Singh and another --Appellants Versus Sant Singh & others --Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE RITU BAHRI. Present:- Mr. Kartar Singh Malik-I, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. R.S. Kundu, Addl. A.G., Haryana. *** PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL) Appellants before us are parents of Chand Singh, who died in an accident. Two claim petitions being M.A.C.T Case No.166 and M.A.C.T Case No.108 came to be filed by the (parents) appellants herein and widow and minor children of the deceased respectively before the M.A.C.T., Rohtak. Both these petitions were referred to the Lok Adalat by the Tribunal. The Lok Adalat passed the award dated 18.12.2008 on the consensus of the parties, whereunder an amount of Rs.4,15,000/- has been awarded to all the claimants including the appellants. It has been recorded in the award of the Lok Adalat that learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that Dalbir Singh & another, who have filed a separate claim petition will also have share in the compensation amount settled between the parties. The appellants challenged this award passed in CWP No. 5966 of 2009 on the ground that neither they were present before the Lok Adalat nor party to the compromise, hence the award passed by the Lok Adalat is not binding upon them. It is, however, relevant to note that the only grouse LPA No. 315 of 2011 -2- of the appellants is that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Lok Adalat is inadequate. Learned Single Judge, however, dismissed the writ petition vide impugned order dated 17.1.2011 on the ground that the award has been passed by the Lok Adalat with the consensus of the parties and the appellants have also been granted the share, hence the writ petition is not maintainable. We have also perused the order of the Lok Adalat. Appellants' counsel namely Sh.R.S. Khatri has been shown to be present at the time of passing of award by the Lok Adalat. Even a reference is made to the submissions of the counsel for the petitioners, though, it is not clearly mentioned as to whether the counsel of the appellants or the other claimants agreed to the settlement. Be that as it may. The case of the appellants is that they were not parties to the settlement and not present at the time of the passing of the award, the same having been passed in their absence and without their consent is liable to be set aside. This submission is contrary to the record of the Lok Adalat, where the presence of the counsel is specifically mentioned. If, the counsel was not present, the appellants should have approached the Lok Adalat seeking review of the order. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellants seeks to withdraw this appeal with liberty to file a review application. Prayer allowed. Dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty as prayed for. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE (RITU BAHRI) JUDGE 20.9.2011. lucky