HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14994/2017 1. Tilak Raj Paranami S/o. Late Shri Guru Dutt, By Caste Punjabi 2. Smt. Kamlesh W/o. Shri Tilak Raj Paranami, Deceased, Both R/o. 391A, Gurunanak Pura, Rajapark, Jaipur. ----Petitioners Versus 1. Gagan Deep Singh S/o. Shri Surjeet Singh, R/o. 5-T-19, Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur. 2. Paramjeet Singh S/o. Shri Surjeet Singh, R/o. 5-T-19, Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur. 3. Future General India Insurance Company Ltd., Through Branch Manager, Second Floor, Royal World, In Front Of City Center, Sansar Chandra Road, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Satyapal Poshwal Mr. Rajan Meena Mr. B.S. Rajput For Respondent(s) : Mr. Chander Deep Singh Jodha JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 29/07/2025 1. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the award dated 26.09.2016 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal No.2 Jaipur Metropolitan II (for short “MACT”) by which the compromise award has been passed wherein a dispute has been settled between the parties and a lumpsum amount of Rs.7.35,000/- has been awarded in favour of Smt. Kamlesh. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that on account of death of their son, the petitioners filed an application under (2 of 3) [CW-14994/2017] Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking considerable amount of compensation before the MACT. Learned counsel submits that during pendency of the claim petition submitted by wife of the petitioner, i.e., Smt. Kamlesh, who passed away on 10.09.2016, the award has been passed on 26.09.2016 on the basis of the alleged consent between the parties. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no consent was given by the deceased wife of the petitioner Smt. Kamlesh during her lifetime as the award does not bear her signatures. Learned counsel submits that as per the Regulation 34 of the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority Regulations, 1999 (for short “the Regulations of 1999”) the award is required to be signed by the parties to the compromise before the Lok Adalat, but in the instant case, award is not bearing the signatures of the petitioner, hence, award dated 26.09.2016 is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is liable to be quashed and set-aside. Learned counsel submits that till date legal representatives of the deceased Smt. Kamlesh have not accepted the amount so awarded by the Lok Adalat. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner, but he is not in a position to controvert the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. 5. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record. 6. This fact is not in dispute that the claim petition was submitted by Smt. Kamlesh on account of accidental death of her son. This fact is also not in dispute that during pendency of the (3 of 3) [CW-14994/2017] said claim, she passed away on 10.09.2016. This fact is also not in dispute that the claim petition submitted by her has been decided on the basis of the compromise between the parties by the MACT by passing the award dated 26.09.2016. No documentary evidence has been placed on record by the respondents indicating the fact that at any point of time the deceased Smt. Kamlesh has signed the compromise application or given her consent to settle the matters by way of the compromise. The award has been passed on 26.09.2016 after death of Smt. Kamlesh. 7. Hence, under these circumstances, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law and is liable to be quashed and set-aside. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed. The matter is remitted to the Tribunal for its fresh disposal in accordance with law. 8. Needless to observe that the Tribunal is expected to make all possible endeavours to decide the claim petition expeditiously as early as possible, as the dispute pertains to the year 2016. 9. All pending applications (if any) stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Karan/60