K.KANNAN,J. - (1.) THE appeal is by some of the claimants, who were aggrieved against the order of the Lok Adalat passed on 07.11.1987, acting on a plea by the mother that a compensation of Rs. 70,000/- in full quit on all claims was for the benefit of all persons. The appellants are the children of the deceased namely Amar Singh, who was 40 years of age, stated to be a motor mechanic. The issue of liability was an admitted fact that she had given evidence initially before the Tribunal that her husband was earning Rs. 2,000/- per month and used to give Rs. 1,300/- to Rs. 1,500/- per month for household expenses. There was fairly a large family of daughter, who was a major at that time when the petition was filed, and four sons, who at the time of institution of the petition, were 17, 15, 12 and 8 years of age. Even if it were to be taken that the third claimant namely Devinder Singh had become a major at the time when the order was passed, considering the fact that he was stated to be 17 years of age at the time of institution, the compromise which had been brought about at the instance of the mother is being assailed by her children contending that the mother did not have competence to enter into compromise on behalf of the children, who had become majors and also as regards the minor children without following the procedure established by law.
(2.) A settlement through a Lok Adalat must be viewed in the context of a compromise and it must answer all the requirements that Order 32 Rule 7 CPC stipulates. If the mother was acting on behalf of the children, the above said provision mandates an affidavit by the guardian mother that it is for the benefit of the minor. If children are represented through a counsel, apart from a certification of the guardian, the counsel must also certify that the compromise is for the benefit of the minor children also. Section 22 of the Legal Services Authority Act details the powers of Lok Adalats and likens it to a Civil Court in its power to summon and receive evidence. Sub Section (2) of the Section also allows Lok Adalat to specify its own procedure for the determination of any dispute coming before it. The hallmark of its style of functioning shall be "to determine and to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties to a dispute............ (Section 19(4)). The Lok Adalat shall, while determining any reference under the Act, "act with utmost expedition to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties and shall be guided by the principles of justice, equity, fair play and other legal principles Section 20(4)). Unlike a Civil Court, which does not need to look beyond its own legal reasoning and need not wait for a litigant's nod for its decisions, the Lok Adalat has a duty to see that the litigant consents. When the litigants include minors, it shall not feel burdened that the provisions of Order 32 Rule 7 CPC cast an onerous duty. The said provision is a procedure of fair play; a device for greater circumspection and a reminder to the Court that it assumes a patria parens role. Consequently, in situations, where minors figure in the array of parties, the guardian shall expressly declare that the compromise settlement is for the benefit of minors, in the manner required under Order 32 Rule 7 CPC. If there are majors and sui juris, all the parties shall signify consent to settlement. In this case, appellants 1 and 2 were majors and their consent had not been obtained. As regards the minors, there was no certifications from the guardian herself or through counsel. The Lok Adalat had alone expressed that the compromise seemed beneficial to the minors. This, in my view, is not sufficient. It is not as if the settlement becomes a nullity, if the procedure is not followed. It is only voidable. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held in a 5 member Bench of the Supreme Court in Bishundeo Narain v. Seogeni Rai-AIR 1951 SC 280, it is good unless the minor chooses to avoid it. It follows that a decree or order based on the agreement is also good unless the minor chooses to challenge it. That is the position where there is no sanction of the Court. Reading the two provisions merely means this. No next friend or guardian for the suit can enter into an agreement or compromise which will bind the minor unless the Court sanctions it. I will substitute the term 'Lok Adalat' wherever the word Court appears. The Lok Adalat's sanction must be a conscious act to the compromise being fair to the minors. The major litigants who were not parties to the settlement and the minors have appealed to this Court and that is a sure method of expression that they do not consent to the award and they are interested in challenging the same.
(3.) I will hold that the compromise effected on 05.06.1986 is not legally sustainable to bind either the major children or the minor children, who had not subscribed their affirmation to the compromise and they have come on appeal before this Court for assailing the same. I would, therefore, consider the issue of the adequacy of compensation as open to fresh adjudication in so far as the share of the minor children alone are concerned.;