Sarwan Singh vs Shri Palwinder Singh and Others

K. Kannan, J.—There is no representation for the Appellant when the matter is called. The case is of the year 1991 and I do not think it is possible to adjourn the case to await the presence of the counsel or dismiss it for default and I proceed to dispose of the case on merits.

The appeal is at the instance of a claimant seeking for enhancement of compensation after an award was passed in terms of compromise between parties. The compromise records the fact that the claimant was to be paid Rs. 25,000/- in full quit for the injuries suffered by him. In the grounds of appeal urged, it is stated that the claimant''s injury had aggravated and it was suggested that a hip replacement had to be done. A Tribunal that passes an award does so on the materials placed and on the representation made. If an award is passed on a compromise, unless the compromise itself is vitiated by any of the circumstances which the law admits of, there could be no ground for an appeal. The appeal, in my view, is not maintainable and the remedy of the claimant ought to have been for recalling the order or setting aside the compromise itself if the compromise award was not in any way tenable. The provision for an appeal u/s 173 must still satisfy the requirements of law providing for an appeal where the award appealed against is capable of being assailed. I would hold that the provisions of Section 96(3) of the CPC Will be attracted also to an appeal filed u/s 173. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.