- (1.) The husband of the petitioner no.1 and the father of the petitioner nos.2 to 5 employed as Khallasi on a truck with registration no.RJ-32-GA-8696 sustained injuries due to an accident on 5.2.2015 of the aforesaid truck with a motorcycle bearing registration no.RJ-02-SU-0292 and expired. The petitioners preferred a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter 'the Act of 1988') before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Alwar (hereinafter 'Tribunal') claiming compensation inter alia against the truck driver, its owner and insurance company.
(2.) The case of the petitioners is that aside of the claim petition before the Tribunal as advised another claim petition was filed under the provisions of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter 'the Act of 1923') before the Commissioner Employee Compensation Act , Jaipur District II, Jaipur (hereinafter 'Commissioner'). It has been submitted that the petitioners are illiterate and the application before the Commissioner under the Act of 1923 was disposed of on a compromise on 13.12.2017 by their advocate acting in that regard without authorization. On the basis of the aforesaid compromise for a sum of Rs.6 lacs, the insurance company--Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited filed an application on 1.2.2018 alongwith the cheque dated 19.1.2018 for the amount in issue in the name of the Commissioner. That cheque has yet not been availed by the petitioners and continues to be with the Commissioner.
(3.) Mr.Vinay Mathur appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are not signatories to the compromise before the Commissioner and their advocate has signed thereon on their behalf without authorization. There was no document before the Commissioner to come to a finding of the advocate being authorized to enter into a compromise on behalf of the petitoners. Consequently, the petitioners have rejected the compromise and consciously not received the sum of Rs.6 lacs in terms of the purported compromise in their application for compensation before the Commissioner. Mr.Vinay Mathur submitted that the petitioners are instead keen to pursue the claim before the Tribunal which has a wider jurisdiction for grant of compensation and seek to abandon their claim/ withdraw their application before the Commissioner. Mr.Vinay Mathur submitted that Commissioner however does not have the power of review and consequently an application for recall of the order dated 13.12.2017 where the petitioners' advocate unauthorizedly entered into the compromise on their behalf, even if filed would not be entertained. Mr.Vinay Mathur submitted that the situation now obtaining is that with the order of compensation based on the purported compromise dated 13.12.2017 presently obtaining, the petitioners would be in restraint in pursuing their application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 for compensation before the Tribunal to their grave detriment. Mr.Vinay Mathur submitted that in this view of the matter this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for quashing and setting aside the order of 13.12.2017 before the Commissioner where under an unauthorized compromise has been recorded and for directing the Commissioner to allow the petitioner to then withdraw the petition filed before him under Section 4-A of the Act of 1923. This for the purpose of leaving the petitioners free to pursue their claim for compensation under the Act of 1988 before the Tribunal in respect of the accident dated 5.2.2015 between the truck bearing registration no.RJ-32-GA-8696 and motorcycle bearing registration no.RJ-02-SU-0292 in which their husband/ father expired.;