Judgment :- 1. Inveighing the order dated 01.02.2010 of the learned V Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai made in M.P.No.3979 of 2009 in M.C.O.P.No.4499 of 2005, this civil revision petition is focussed. 2. Heard both sides. 3. A summation and summarisation of the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this civil revision petition would run thus: The first respondent T.Apparanantham herein filed MACTOP No.4499 of 2005 claiming certain amount for the injuries sustained by him in a Motor Vehicle accident. It appears that some understanding emerged between the Insurance Company and the claimant and the fact remains that the owner of the vehicle remained exparte. Based on such compromise, Lok Adalat award was passed on 11.07.2009 awarding a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh only) in favour of the claimant payable by the Insurance company. Subsequently, when the Insurance company came to know of the Lok Adalat award, it raised query as against its official viz., Ilavarasi, Deputy Manager of the Insurance of the Company as to how she can enter into such a compromise and get Lok Adalat award when the Insurance company had not authorised her to enter into any compromise even though relating to other similar cases, the Insurance company authorised her to enter into compromise. The fact also remains as expressed by the learned counsel for the claimant that on the date of the compromise arrived at by the Insurance company and the claimant the very same Advocate had some other cases also; as such, out of over sight the said Ilavarasi, the Deputy Manager of the Insurance company agreed for compromise in this matter also, even though, in fact, there was no authorisation for her to enter into such compromise. As such M.P.No.3979 of 2009 was filed for getting set aside the Lok Adalat award, but it was dismissed on the main ground that the court itself is having no power to set aside the Lok Adalat award. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order, this revision is filed on the main ground that the Lok Adalat award emerged due to misconception as set out supra. 4. Thelearned counsel for the petitioner would reiterate the above ground. 5. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order, this revision is filed on the main ground that the Lok Adalat award emerged due to misconception as set out supra. 4. Thelearned counsel for the petitioner would reiterate the above ground. 5. The learnedcounsel for R1 claimant would agree for setting aside the Lok Adalat award after setting aside the order in I.A.No.3979 of 2009 and post the matter for processing the MCOP by the Tribunal as per law. 6. R2 being the owner of the vehicle remained exparte before the lower court and the learned counsel for the revision petitioner would pray for dispensing with notice to R2. Accordingly notice to R2 is dispensed with as it is not necessary in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. 7. I recollect and call up the maxim non videntur qui errant consentire (They are not considered to consent who commit a mistake) as per which when a compromise alleged to have emerged out of misconception, then that would have no legs to stand. 8. Takinginto consideration the admitted factual position, I would like to set aside the Lok Adalat award even though Lok Adalat award should not be set aside and that should be respected in stricto sensu. But this is a singularly singular case as set out supra and therefore, I set aside the order dated 01.02.2010 in M.P.No.3979 of 2009 and also set aside the Lok Adalat award dated 11.07.2009 and the MCOP No. 4499 of 2005 is ordered to be restored to file by the Tribunal. It appears already counter also has been filed. Hence, the Tribunal shall deal with the matter and dispose of the same within two months from this date on a day to day basis. Both sides shall cooperate with the Tribunal for early disposal on merits. 9. With the above direction, this civil revision petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.