CRP 74/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY Heard Mr. G.P. Bhowmik, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. D. Pach ani, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Mr. Bhatra, le arned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3. The petitioners, who are the claimants in MAC Case No.409/2009 pending b efore the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhubri, by the present petition has challenged the order dated 26.11.2010 passed in the said proceedin g reviewing the award dated 24.03.2010 passed by the Lok Adalat recording compro mise and awarding an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation to the petitioners for the death of a minor girl in an accident occurred on 03.09.2009. The ground on which the said order put to challenge is that since the compromise award date d 24.03.2010 was passed by the Lok Adalat, the learned Member, Motor Accident Cl aims Tribunal has no jurisdiction to review of the order even if there is an all egation of fraud. Mr. Bhowmik, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since the award passed by the Lok Adalat is a decree, the review petition or the petition for setting aside such decree has to be filed before the Lok Adalat and not befo re the learned Member, MACT, as has been done in the instant case. It has, there fore, been submitted that the learned Member, MACT has no jurisdiction to entert ain the petition filed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 and passed the order dated 26.11.2010. Mr. Pachani, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 2, o n the other hand, has submitted that there is allegation of fraud committed by t he present petitioners claiming themselves to be the parents of the minor girl, who died because of the accident occurred on 03.09.2009, though the respondent N os.1 and 2 are the parents and thereby depriving the present respondents from ge tting the compensation to which they are entitled to under the law. Referring to the application filed before the learned Member, MACT, it has also been submitt ed that there is allegation of collusion between the learned counsel for the pet itioners as well as the learned counsel for the insurance company in getting the matter settled in the Lok Adalat and as such no illegality has been committed b y the learned Member, MACT in recalling the award passed and in deciding to rehe ar the MAC proceeding. The learned counsel further submits that even if the lear ned Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the said application filed by the present respondent Nos.1 and 2, since such illegality has been brought to the no tice of this Court, it can very well exercise the jurisdiction and direct the le arned Member, MACT to rehear the MAC proceeding and as such the impugned order d ated 26.11.2010 may not be interfered with. Mr. Bhatra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 submits th at the allegation of collusion by the learned counsel of the insurance company i s not correct. Mr. Bhatra, however, has submitted that in the event any award is passed by practicing fraud, the same is required to be set aside so that the ri ghtful person, who is entitled to get the compensation is awarded with such comp ensation for the death of the minor girl. It appears that MAC Case No.409/2009 was filed by the present petitioner s before the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhubri, claiming co mpensation for the death of Rashida Khatun, who was about 8 years old, on 03.09. 2009. The proceeding was thereafter taken up before the Lok Adalat on 24.03.2010 and on the basis of the compromise arrived at between the petitioners in one si de and the insurance company on the other side, an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- was a warded, which was directed to be paid by the insurance company to the petitioner s. The present respondents were not parties to the said proceeding. The present respondents having come to know about such an award passed, immediately filed an application on 29.04.2010 before the learned Member, MACT, seeking review of the award passed contending that the petitioners by practicing fraud has got the award in their favour though they are not the parents of Rash ida Khatun, who died on 03.09.2009 and they (petitioners) being the real parents are entitled to compensation. As noticed above, the learned Tribunal by the said order dated 26.11.201 0, in view of such a serious allegation made, recalled the award dated 24.03.201 0 and decided to rehear the MAC Case No.409/2009, wherein naturally the question who are the real parents would be gone into. Though the award was passed by the Lok Adalat on 24.03.2010 and such awa rd takes the character of the decree in view of the provision of Legal Services Authority Act, 1987, strictly speaking an application filed before the learned M ACT seeking review of the order or recalling of the said award may not be mainta inable. However, since the parties have brought to the notice of this Court in t he present proceeding about the alleged commission of such a fraud by the presen t petitioners, I do not intend to interfere with the order dated 26.11.2010, sol ely on the ground that the amount of compensation has to be paid to the rightful parents, which is yet to be ascertained. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 26.11.2010 is not interfe red with. The learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhubri, is directe d to decide the MAC Case No.409/2009 as expeditiously as possible and in any cas e within a period of 1(one) year from the date of appearance of the parties. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Tribunal on 19.01.2012. Since the owner of the vehicle is not represented, the Tribunal naturally issue notic e on the owner. The revision petition is accordingly disposed of.