JUDGMENT 1. - Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and award dated 28.7.2000 rendered by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Dholpur, whereby an amount of Rs. 1,15,000/- has been decreed in favour of the appellants and against the respondents. Being dissatisfied with the amount of compensation, the appellants have filed this appeal for the enhancement of the quantum of compensation. 2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the relevant material on record including the impugned award. 3. Learned Counsel for the appellants have filed this appeal on the following two grounds : (i) That the claimants-appellants Nos. 2 to 5 were minor at the time of their mother's death but no leave of the Court was sought by claimant Betal Singh or their Counsel before entering into a compromise before the Lok Adalat as contemplated by Order 32 Rule 7 of the C.P.C. (ii) That the deceased Smt. Vimlesh was in service at the time of her death. Learned Tribunal decreed an amount of only Rs. 1,15,000/- which is too meager and insufficient looking to the age and the income of the deceased and the number of dependents. 4. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record, it is noticed that the provisions of Order 32 Rule 7 of C.P.C. do not apply in the proceedings before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Rule 10.28 of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Rules, 1990 contains the list of Sections, Orders and Rules of Code of Civil Procedure, the provisions of which are applicable to the proceedings before the Tribunal. It does not contain Order 32 Rule 7, hence, the first ground of appeal is found to be untenable. However, a perusal of the relevant documents on record reveals that both the parties moved an application on documents on record reveals that both the parties moved an application on 28.7.2000 before the learned Tribunal expressing their desire to get the matter decided by the Lok Adalat. The application bears signatures of learned Counsel for both the parties. Learned Tribunal is found to have read over the contents of the compound petition to both the parties who admitted them to be true and thereafter, learned Tribunal granted leave to compromise the proceedings. This makes the argument of the learned Counsel to be totally devoid of force. 5. The application bears signatures of learned Counsel for both the parties. Learned Tribunal is found to have read over the contents of the compound petition to both the parties who admitted them to be true and thereafter, learned Tribunal granted leave to compromise the proceedings. This makes the argument of the learned Counsel to be totally devoid of force. 5. So far as the second ground is concerned the compound petition further reveals that both the parties agreed to an amount of Rs. 1,15,000/- and when both the parties admitted the contents of the compound petition to be true, learned Tribunal decreed an amount of Rs. 1,15,000/- in favour of the claimants-appellants and against the Insurance Company. In view of this position, the award which was passed by the learned Tribunal cannot be interfered with and the appeal in facts and circumstances of the case deserves to be dismissed. 6. For the reasons stated above, the appeal fails and the same being bereft of merits stands dismissed. 7. There shall be no order as to costs.Appeal dismissed. *******