Judgment :- Pareed Pillay, J. Appellant is the third respondent in O.P.(MV) 618 of 1987 of the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mavelikkara. First respondent filed the Original Petition under S.110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 for compensation for bodily injuries sustained by him in a motor accident. While the matter was pending before the Tribunal, the parties settled the claim through negotiation and the appellant (National Insurance Co. Ltd.) agreed to pay Rs. 25,000/- to the first respondent in full and final settlement of all the claims. Accordingly, Rs. 25,000/- was awarded as compensation making the appellant liable to pay the same to the first respondent. 2. Contention of the appellant is that it had raised serious objections to the claim by filing a detailed counter statement, that when the case came up for trial there was suggestion for settlement and that it did not agree to the suggestion. According to the appellant, the Tribunal went wrong in granting compensation to the tune of Rs. 25,000/ - in favour of the first respondent. 3. The award passed by the Tribunal unfolds the fact that compensation was determined solely on the basis of the settlement pursuant to negotiations. Appellant has not cared to file any affidavit or petition before the Tribunal stating that it never agreed to the payment of compensation of Rs. 25,000/- to the first respondent. Having not done so, it is futile on the part of the appellant to raise the contention that it never agreed to settlement as stated in the award, for the first time before this Court. Appellant ought to have filed affidavit before the Tribunal itself stating that it never agreed to payment of compensation of Rs. 25,000/- to the first respondent. Having not done so, appellant cannot challenge the award on the ground that it never agreed to any settlement as mentioned in the award. 4. As the award reveals the fact that compensation was determined on the basis of the settlement, it cannot be permitted to be challenged by the appellant in a cavalier manner. Position will be different if both the parties to the proceedings admitted that the statement in the judgment is wrong. Otherwise settled legal position is that the statement found in a judgment or order of the Court or Tribunal cannot be allowed to be assailed before the appellate Court. Position will be different if both the parties to the proceedings admitted that the statement in the judgment is wrong. Otherwise settled legal position is that the statement found in a judgment or order of the Court or Tribunal cannot be allowed to be assailed before the appellate Court. It is useful to refer to Bank of Bihar v. Mahabir Lai A.I.R 1964 SC 377) where the Supreme Court held: - "In our opinion where a statement appears in the judgment of a court that a particular tiling happened or did not happen before it, it ought not ordinarily to be permitted to be challenged by a party unless of course both the parties to the litigation agree that the statement is wrong, or the court itself admits that the statement is erroneous." 5. Admittedly no affidavit was filed before the Tribunal to the effect that the concession recorded in the award was really not made by the appellant or counsel. The permissible manner in which a challenge can be made to the recording of concession in the judgment of Court or Tribunal is to approach that Court/Tribunal to rectify the error as it alone is competent to do so. If that has not been done appellate court cannot interfere especially when the concession was not made on a wrong appreciation of the law which resulted in gross injustice. In State of Maharashtra v. Ramdas Shrinivas nayak (1982(2) SCC 463: A.I.R 1982 SC 1249) the Supreme Court made the position absolutely clear. The Supreme Court held: - "The Court is bound to accept the statement of the judges recorded in their judgment, as to what transpired in court. It cannot allow the statement of the judges to be contradicted by statements at the Bar or by affidavit and other evidence. If the judges say in their judgment that something was done, said or admitted before them, that has to be the last word on the subject. The principle is well settled mat statements of fact as to what transpired at the hearing, recorded in the judgment of the court, are conclusive of the facts so stated and no one can contradict such statements by affidavit or other evidence. The principle is well settled mat statements of fact as to what transpired at the hearing, recorded in the judgment of the court, are conclusive of the facts so stated and no one can contradict such statements by affidavit or other evidence. If a party thinks that the happenings in court have been wrongly recorded in a judgment, it is incumbent upon the party, while the matter is still fresh in the minds of the judges, to call the attention of the very judges who have made the record to the fact that the statement made with regard to his conduct was a statement that had been made in error. That is the only way to have the record corrected. If no such step is taken, the matter must necessarily end there. Of course a party may resile and an Appellate Court may permit him in rare and appropriate cases to resile from a concession on the ground that the concession was made on a wrong appreciation of the law and had led to gross injustice; but, he may not call in question the very fact of making the concession as recorded in the judgment." In view of the settled legal position, there is hardly any merit in the appeal. M.F.A. is dismissed in limine.