FAO No. 1994 of 2002 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CANDIGARH F.A.O.No. 1994 of 2002 Date of Decision: 14.1.2009 Rajinder .......Appellant. Vs. Karambir Singh and others .......Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY. Present: Mr. Tara Chand Dhanwal,Advocate, for the appellant. *** Daya Chaudhary, J. The award dated 5.1.2002 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hisar is under challenge by way of this appeal on the ground that counsel before the Tribunal was not authorized to compromise for Rs.1,95,000/- and was only authorized to compromise over and above Rs.6,00,000/-. Mr. Dhanwal, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the appellant was working as turner and his monthly income was Rs.10,000/- per month and income from agriculture was Rs.5000/- per month. He further submits that the claimant was 24 years of age at the time of accident and it was a case of 90% permanent disability.The claimant remained in the hospital w.e.f.14.11.2000 to 2.12.2000 and had also FAO No. 1994 of 2002 [2] incurred Rs.3,00,000/- on treatment and the amount of compensation is on the lesser side and counsel before the Tribunal was not authorized to compromise for Rs.1,95,000/- and was authorized to compromise over and above Rs.6,00,000/- I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant and have also gone through the award dated 5.1.2002. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,95,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by the appellant in the accident on the basis of settlement arrived at between the parties. The appellant has already accepted the amount in view of the settlement. Now, the appellant has no cause of action to challenge the compensation amount which has been awarded on the basis of settlement between the parties. The argument of learned counsel for the appellant that the consent of the appellant was not sought while awarding Rs.1,95,000/- as compensation is not tenable in view of the fact that the award was passed on the basis of the compromise between the parties and the awarded amount has already been accepted by the appellant and, moreover, there is nothing on the record to show that the counsel was not authorized. I do not find any good ground to interfere with the award of the learned MACT, Hisar. Hence, this appeal is dismissed. (Daya Chaudhary) Judge January 14, 2009 raghav Note: Whether to be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes/No