B. K. SANGALAD, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal by the insurance company is filed against the award in wca cr 24/nf/94 dated 20. 2. 1995 passed by the commissioner for workmen's compensation. ( 2 ) THE respondent No. 1 has filed an application claiming the compensation of Rs. 2,00,000 as he met with an accident on 29. 9. 1993. He was working as a driver under the employment of respondent No. 2. ( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the case was referred before the lok adalat and the parties had agreed for the compensation of Rs. 80,664 and compromise application was filed under order 23, Rule 3 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 before the commissioner. But the commissioner has not passed the award in terms of the compromise arrived at before the lok adalat and he has awarded Rs. 1,00,830. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that when there is already an award made by lok adalat, it was not open for the commissioner to go in with the proceedings and pass award. On the other hand, Mr. Manohar, learned counsel for r1, submitted that in view of Section 17 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, the award passed by the commissioner is correct. ( 4 ) IN view of these contentions, now it is to be seen whether the order passed by the commissioner requires to be interfered. ( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon a decision in the case of united India Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Patramma, 1996 ACJ 427 (karnataka ). In this case it is clearly held that there cannot be any interference unless it is manifestly shown that the award is bad or perverse or so inherently wrong. The facts in this case are more or less similar to the facts of the case on hand. Even in the cited case, the agreed amount was Rs. 59,735 but the commissioner had passed an award for Rs. 78,088. In this case also the agreed amount was Rs. 80,664 but the commissioner passed an award for Rs. 1,00,830. The facts in this case are more or less similar to the facts of the case on hand. Even in the cited case, the agreed amount was Rs. 59,735 but the commissioner had passed an award for Rs. 78,088. In this case also the agreed amount was Rs. 80,664 but the commissioner passed an award for Rs. 1,00,830. ( 6 ) IN my opinion, Section 17 of the act does not come in the way of the award made by the lok adalat and if at all the claimant was not happy with the award made by the lok adalat, he could not have agreed to file a compromise petition. Once the compromise petition is filed before the commissioner, the commissioner is estopped from resorting to procedural irregularity. He is left with no option other than drawing a decree. If the claimant had taken any objection and had filed an application that he was not prepared to accept the award of the lok adalat, then the commissioner could have proceeded in accordance with law. Moreover, this is not an agreement arrived between the private parties. The award passed by the lok adalat has got the sanctity. In the light of this submission, the following order is passed. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The award passed by the commissioner is set aside and the award passed by the lok adalat is confirmed. The appellant is directed to pay the compensation of Rs. 80,664 to respondent No. 1. If it is already paid, then the matter ends. appeal allowed. --- *** --- .