B. K. SANGALAD, J. ( 1 ) THESE appeals are directed against the common judgment and award passed in m. v. c. nos. 597 and 598 of 1987 respectively with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum and costs. ( 2 ) THE petitioners in m. v. c. nos. 597 and 598 of 1987 along with other two petitioners in m. v. c. nos. 596 and 586 of 1987 filed petition for compensation stating that both these petitioners were working at gurudevashram, devaragudda, kalmanje village in belthangady taluk. They were travelling in the jeep bearing No. Meg 3586 belonging to respondent No. 3 ashram and insured with respondent No. 4 on 29. 3. 1987 at about 10. 30 a. m. from ujire side towards mangalore side. The k. s. r. t. c. bus bearing No. Myf 9032 belonging to the respondent No. 2 came from the opposite side and dashed against the jeep. Initially the petitioners had made only the driver of k. s. r. t. c. as respondent alleging negligence. Subsequently the owner and the insurer of the jeep were made parties. The petitioners in m. v. c. nos. 596 and 586 of 1987 took up the matter before lok adalat and the matter was settled. The k. s. r. t. c. has made the payments according to the compromise arrived at. ( 3 ) THE tribunal after recording the evidence, viz. , pws 1 to 3, accepting the documents exhs. P1 to p8 and recording the evidence of dw 1, has passed the award holding that the driver who died in the same accident was responsible for the accident. ( 4 ) MR. Sowriraju, learned counsel for the appellant has taken up the contention that once the k. s. r. t. c has entered into compromise before the lok adalat in respect of the two other petitions which also arise out of the same accident, it is estopped from taking up the contention that the driver of the jeep was responsible. The tribunal has grossly erred in holding that the driver of the jeep was responsible. As such the appellant was responsible to pay the compensation. Heard Mr. Sharath chandra bijai for the respondent No. 1. The owner of the jeep and the k. s. r. t. c. although served have not chosen to represent. 5. The tribunal has grossly erred in holding that the driver of the jeep was responsible. As such the appellant was responsible to pay the compensation. Heard Mr. Sharath chandra bijai for the respondent No. 1. The owner of the jeep and the k. s. r. t. c. although served have not chosen to represent. 5. At the very outset, it has to be stated that in this case the law of estoppel operates. It is an admitted fact that the k. s. r. t. c. in mvc nos. 596 and 586 of 1987 has settled the matter before the lok adalat and it has made full payment also. This goes to show that by this settlement accepting the liability on account of the negligent driving, it is now estopped from taking up any other contention. This is a fit case where the law of estoppel comes into play very effectively. The learned member of the tribunal ought to have taken this aspect into consideration. He has failed to consider this aspect and unnecessarily has ventured to make some futile exercises which were uncalled for looking to the facts and circumstances of the case. Hence I am inclined to allow these appeals. In the light of this observation, the following order is passed: the appeals are allowed. The liability of the appellant is set aside. Respondent No. 2 is directed to satisfy the award to the claimants passed in m. v. c. nos. 597 and 598 of 1987. Appeals allowed. --- *** --- .