CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5966 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 5966 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION: JANUARY 17, 2011 Dalbir Singh & another .....Petitioners VERSUS Sant Singh & others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH PRESENT: Mr. K.S. Malik, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. S.S. Patter, D.A.G., Haryana for the State. Mr. Subhash Goyal, Advocate, for respondent No.4. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioners are the unfortunate parents of deceased Chand Singh, who died on account of motor vehicular accident. The petitioners, accordingly filed a MACT case No.166 on 26.9.2007 titled as Dilbagh & others Versus Sant Kumar and others. The wife of the deceased and two minors, also filed a separate MACT case No.108 of 2007. Both the cases were clubbed together and decided by the impugned order. The petitioners, who are parents, have now approached this Court through the present writ petition to challenge the award passed by the Lok Adalat, Rohtak. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5966 of 2009 -2- It appears that during the pendency of the MACT claim, the case was referred to Lok Adalat, where the claim titled as Munesh & others Versus Sant Kumar and others along with the connected claim filed by the petitioners were amicably settled. Insurance Company agreed to pay a sum of Rs.4,15,000/-. The claimants were left to claim their shares in this amount. The petitioners, who are parents, have filed this writ petition to challenge the award passed by the Lok Adalat only on the ground that they or their counsel were not heard being not present at the time of passing the award by Lok Adalat. No doubt, a party is entitled to hearing and should agree for valid disposal of claim before Lok Adalat and if one is denied opportunity of hearing, one may not be bound by that. This rule, essentially a rule of ensuing fair play may not strictly be attracted in this case, as claimant having equal, if not better interest in the claim were present and were heard and had agreed to the settlement. It cannot, therefore, be said that any rule of fair hearing was denied in this case. Both the parties were represented with their counsel when the Lok Adalat passed the impugned order. The amount has been settled on the basis of consensus and has also been paid. Re-opening the case may lead to prejudicing the interest of claimant who had agreed to settlement and had accepted the award. The Insurance Company has stood by the settlement and has discharged the liability and has deposited the amount. Requiring the Lok Adalat to hear and re-consider the issue, may prejudice the rights of co-claimants, who have already recovered CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5966 of 2009 -3- the amount. The reason for which an opportunity of hearing is being sought is on the ground that the petitioners could not produce evidence that they had spent a sum of Rs.60,000/- on the treatment of the deceased. The amount of compensation has been assessed on the basis of the consensus. This part of the claim would have been taken care of the submission that without the concurrence of the petitioners the matter could not have been compromised, may appear attractive but would not strictly be applicable in the present case. The wife and the minors in the presence of their counsel had agreed to settle the issue. The compromise in such like cases need to be encouraged rather than discouraged. The amount has already been paid. There is no allegation that any fraud or misrepresentation has lead to any less payment. I am, thus, not inclined to interfere in the exercise of writ jurisdiction. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. January 17, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) monika JUDGE