https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311462 A compromise entered into on behalf of minor claimants without express leave of the court could not bind them, because Order 32 Rule 7 CPC requires judicial approval and a recorded finding that the settlement benefits the minors; that protection was held to apply before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal on principles of equity and justice, so the compromise was void against the minor appellants. On liability, the evidence showed the tanker was on the wrong side of the road and the collision was attributable to its driver, making the tanker owners and driver liable while the Union of India was exonerated. The award based on the compromise was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh determination of quantum against the liable private respondents. en-us Wed, 19 Mar 1975 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 27 Dec 2023 16:11:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311462 A compromise entered into on behalf of minor claimants without express leave of the court could not bind them, because Order 32 Rule 7 CPC requires judicial approval and a recorded finding that the settlement benefits the minors; that protection was held to apply before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal on principles of equity and justice, so the compromise was void against the minor appellants. On liability, the evidence showed the tanker was on the wrong side of the road and the collision was attributable to its driver, making the tanker owners and driver liable while the Union of India was exonerated. The award based on the compromise was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh determination of quantum against the liable private respondents. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 19 Mar 1975 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311462