R. R. K. TRIVEDI, J. ( 1 ) NOTICE of this case was taken on 25. 3. 1992 by this court in exercise of suo motu powers under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, on the basis of a news item published in english daily newspaper, the Times of India, Lucknow, of the date 13. 3. 1992 with the heading all for 30,000 pieces of silver. By order dated 17. 4. 1992 the learned District Judge, Hamirpur, was directed to submit his report to this court along with the record of the case. In pursuance of this order, learned District Judge submitted his report dated 12. 5. 1992 along with the record of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Case No. 42/70 of 1990. ( 2 ) FROM a perusal of the record, the facts giving rise to this case are that one Manju Gupta, aged about 3 years, met with an accident on 19. 3. 1985, at 4. 30 p. m. in front of her house near Mandi barrier, Sumerpur. In this accident, she lost both of her legs. She was treated at District Hospital, hamirpur and ultimately at Lala Lajpat Rai Hospital, Kanpur. She remained in this hospital in the Department of Orthopaedics from 10. 4. 1985 to 6. 7. 1985, as is clear from the discharge slip filed as paper No. 30 Ka-1 on record. The claim petition was filed on 27. 2. 1989 along with an application for condonation of delay. After hearing the parties, the application for condoning the delay was allowed and delay was condoned by an order dated 15. 12. 1990 and thus the case was registered as Accident Claim Petition No. 42/70 of 1990. The break-up of the claim made in the claim petition is as under: ( 3 ) RS. 13,000/- as expenses incurred in treatment of Manju Gupta. ( 4 ) RS. 7,000/- as conveyance charges in coming and going from Sumerpur to Hamirpur and kanpur. ( 5 ) RS. 2,00,000/- as compensation for loss of both the legs of the claimant as she has been rendered handicapped for whole of life. ( 6 ) THUS, the total claim made was for Rs. 2,20,000/ -. ( 7 ) THE claim petition was resisted by filing written statement by the National Insurance Co. Ltd. on various grounds and the quantum of compensation claimed was also disputed. ( 6 ) THUS, the total claim made was for Rs. 2,20,000/ -. ( 7 ) THE claim petition was resisted by filing written statement by the National Insurance Co. Ltd. on various grounds and the quantum of compensation claimed was also disputed. During the pendency of the case, however, a Lok Adalat was held at Hamirpur on 19. 1. 1992. On this date a compromise was filed by father of Manju Gupta stating that the entire claim of the claimant had been settled for Rs. 30,000/- which shall be paid by the insurance company and the claim petition may be decided on the basis of the compromise. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, thereafter, the same day, passed the award deciding the claim on the basis of the aforesaid compromise and on the basis of this award, a decree was prepared and signed on 5. 2. 1992. The national Insurance Co. Ltd. on 2. 3. 1992 moved an application and filed the cheque No. 011254 of the date 11. 3. 1992 for the amount of Rs. 30,000/- before the court which was accepted by the court and it was directed to be deposited in State Bank of India on 26. 3. 1992. ( 8 ) WHILE taking notice of the case by this court by order dated 25. 3. 1992 it was observed that in a claim petition on behalf of minor, no settlement or compromise could be arrived at without leave of the court as required under Rules 6 and 7 of Order 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The learned District Judge in para 6 of his report clearly mentioned that no leave of court was obtained before entering into the settlement/ compromise and the mandatory provisions of Rule 7 of Order 32 were not complied with. The Lok Adalat was presided over by the learned 4th additional District Judge, Mr. R. N. Ram, who was also the Presiding Officer of the Motor accidents Claims Tribunal. However, this aspect of the case was unfortunately ignored. ( 9 ) I have perused the record and from the compromise application dated 19. 1. 1992 and the order-sheet dated 19. 1. 1992, it is clear that the provisions of Rule 7 of Order 32, Civil Procedure code, were not at all complied with. It cannot be denied that the amount of Rs. ( 9 ) I have perused the record and from the compromise application dated 19. 1. 1992 and the order-sheet dated 19. 1. 1992, it is clear that the provisions of Rule 7 of Order 32, Civil Procedure code, were not at all complied with. It cannot be denied that the amount of Rs. 30,000/- was grossly inadequate for the injury sustained by the minor girl of three years who was aged six years at the time the petition was filed. The provisions contained in Rules 6 and 7 of Order 32 are mandatory and the learned 4th Additional District Judge could not legally act upon the settlement arrived at between the parties without applying his mind to the fact as to whether the amount agreed between the parties is adequate to compensate the minor girl. This is a legal obligation of the court created by law to protect the interest of minor in such circumstances. The purpose of Lok Adalat no doubt is to settle claims and disputes between the parties expeditiously, but at the same time the court should not forget its obligation under law to protect the interest of the parties, specially the claims of minors and persons of unsound mind. In fact, the court should keep a watch while making settlement of claims in Lok Adalats. It cannot be lost sight of that a litigant under pressure of time and money spent in courts easily succumbs to the pressure and agrees to the small amounts which may not be adequate to compensate the actual loss suffered. The court should keep a watch that no such pressure prevails on a litigant. This responsibility becomes heavier when the court or Tribunal is dealing with cases of minors or persons of unsound mind. In Lok Adalats in the name of speedy justice the court should not sacrifice the real cause of justice for which confidence has been reposed on them by the society. ( 10 ) IN the instant case, the father of the claimant might have succumbed to the pressure of time and expenses and could have been persuaded to accept even the inadequate amount. However, the court should not have approved the same. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the award dated 19. 1. 1992 cannot be sustained being in violation of the mandatory provisions of law. ( 11 ) I have heard Mr. However, the court should not have approved the same. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the award dated 19. 1. 1992 cannot be sustained being in violation of the mandatory provisions of law. ( 11 ) I have heard Mr. V. S. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the claimant and Mr. K. S. Amisht, learned counsel appearing for the National Insurance Co. Ltd. Notices to the other respondents were sent under registered cover fixing 15. 2. 1993. According to the office report dated 22. 2. 1993, neither the undelivered cover nor the acknowledgement has been received back after service. Thus, under the Rules of the court the service on other respondents is deemed sufficient. Nobody has put in appearance for them. ( 12 ) LEARNED counsel for the claimant and Mr. K. S. Amisht have agreed to the legal infirmity in the award dated 19. 1. 1992 as mentioned above. However, both the learned counsel have submitted that this accident took place on 19. 3. 1985. Sufficient time has already elapsed and it would not be appropriate to remand the case to the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal for passing the award afresh after hearing the parties. Both the learned counsel submit that as there is no factual dispute between the parties, suitable amount of compensation may be determined by this court and the award may be modified to that extent which may save time and may serve the interest of justice. ( 13 ) I have heard learned counsel for parties on the amount of compensation and after considering every aspect of the matter, in my opinion, amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- should be awarded to the minor claimant and Rs. 10,000/- may be awarded to her father towards the expenses incurred on the treatment. Both the learned counsel have been very reasonable and have agreed to this amount. ( 14 ) BOTH the learned counsel have also submitted that the amount awarded may be so invested in some interest earning account that the minor may receive a monthly amount directly from the bank throughout her life and she may not remain dependent on anybody for her needs. In my opinion, the suggestion given by learned counsel for parties is justified and the award should contain a direction in this regard also as father of the claimant miserably failed to protect her interest at the relevant time. In my opinion, the suggestion given by learned counsel for parties is justified and the award should contain a direction in this regard also as father of the claimant miserably failed to protect her interest at the relevant time. ( 15 ) FOR the reason recorded above, this revision is allowed in part. The award dated 19. 1. 1992 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in Motor Accident Claim No. 42/70 of 1990 shall stand modified to the extent that the amount of compensation awarded shall be Rs. 1,00,000/- so far as the minor claimant is concerned. In the award for the amount of Rs. 30,000/amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- shall be deemed to have been substituted. Rs. 10,000/- is awarded towards the expenses incurred for treatment of the claimant. This amount shall be paid to her father directly. The amount of Rs. 30,000/- has already been paid by the National Insurance Co. Ltd. The remaining amount of Rs. 80,000/- shall be paid within a period of two months from the date of this order. The amount of Rs. 30,000/- together with Rs. 70,000/- received under this order shall be deposited in bank in some interest earning account by the learned District Judge. State Bank shall be directed to pay every month to the minor claimant the interest accrued. The amount of Rs. 10,000/- shall be paid to the father of the minor claimant. Until the minor claimant attains majority, learned District Judge, Hamirpur, shall continue to supervise the investment of the amount awarded to the minor claimant and payment of interest to her with a particular watch to whether the amount is being properly utilised towards the maintenance and rehabilitation of the claimant. This supervision may be carried out by the learned District Judge himself or under his direct control through any of his subordinate officers or officials. The District Judge shall also do the needful so as to provide artificial limbs and education facility to the claimant as she has lost both her legs in the accident. ( 16 ) NO order as to costs. The District Judge shall also do the needful so as to provide artificial limbs and education facility to the claimant as she has lost both her legs in the accident. ( 16 ) NO order as to costs. ( 17 ) BEFORE parting with this case, this court expresses its deep appreciation to the newspaper the times of India which was kind enough to publish this news item in its newspaper which proved to be of great help in furthering the cause of justice but for this interest in time this court would not have been able to redress this great injustice caused to the minor claimant. Reporting of such cases is a real service to the public and the newspaper and its authorities deserve all appreciation. ( 18 ) A copy of this order along with the record of the case shall be sent to the learned District judge, Hamirpur, by the office without any delay, within three weeks. .