JUDGMENT 1. - Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. This writ petition is directed against the order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dated 16.4.2004 whereby the Tribunal refused to recall the order of award of compensation in Lok Adalat held in MACT Case No.12/1999 whereby the compensation of Rs.30,000/- was awarded to the claimant Jaswant Singh. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an application was filed before the said Tribunal that the said award was passed on misrepresentation as the bills for expenditure incurred for treatment of injuries to the extent of Rs.1,02,000/- were given to the Assistant of the Advocate concerned. 4. The learned Tribunal has rejected the said application not finding any force in the said application and having found that such bills were never produced before the Tribunal and no misrepresentation on the part of the Advocate concerned was pointed out in the said application. 5. On specific query put to the learned counsel for the petitioner here as to whether any action was initiated against the Advocate concerned in Bar Council, he stated in negative that no such action was taken against the Advocate concerned. He however, relied upon the a judgment of this Court in the case of Prem Lata (Smt.) v. Ganesh Ram and ors., reported in 2007 (1) ACTC 278 . 6. The learned counsel for respondents opposes these submissions and submits that there is no ground for recalling said order. 7. Having considered the rival submissions, this Court is of the opinion that in absence of any specific allegation against the Lawyer concerned that he acted without jurisdiction in entering into compromise in the Lok Adalat held in the said Tribunal, this Court is not satisfied to set aside the order of the Tribunal by which it refused to recall the said order of compensation upon a compromise. The judgment cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is on different footing and it has been stated therein that if such compromise is arrived at without consent of the parties concerned, the same cannot be held to be binding. Nothing of this sort has been stated in the present case that the Advocate concerned did not have instructions or consent of the parties concerned to settle the said dispute in Lok Adalat. Nothing of this sort has been stated in the present case that the Advocate concerned did not have instructions or consent of the parties concerned to settle the said dispute in Lok Adalat. Normally, an advocate appearing upon instructions through a duly executed Vakalatnama has implied power to enter into compromise on behalf of his client. In the present case, the award of compensation of Rs.30,000/- by Lok Adalat on consent of Advocate cannot be said to be without instructions or power of Advocate concerned nor it can be said to have been procured on any misrepresentation. 8. Therefore, this writ petition is found to be devoid of merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.Writ petition dismissed. *******