GUPTA, J.—This misc. appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award dated 18.11.1998 passed by learned MACT, Neem-ka-Thana in MAC No. 80/1996 whereby the Tribunal has rejected the claim petition of the claimants/appellants. 2. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal as alleged in the claim petition are that on 22.8.1989, mother of the appellants was coming to her village Purana Bas from Mandoli. Respondent No.3 driving the Tractor rashly and negligently, hit the mother of the appellants who died on the spot. An FIR was lodged and challan has been filed against the respondent No.3. The appellants who are sons of deceased, filed claim petition before the MACT, Neem-ka-Thana on 24.7.1996. 3. In reply to the claim petition, the respondents stated that the matter has been compromised between the parties and payment has been made to the appellants on 25.8.1989 itself and in view of the compromise, the claim petition is not maintainable. An application under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC has also been submitted in this regard and by allowing the said application, the learned Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition. Hence, this misc. appeal. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant record especially the impugned judgment and award. 5. The contention of the counsel for the appellant is that provisions of Order 23 Rule 3 CPC is not applicable to the case in hand as the said provisions apply only to the compromise which has arrived at during the course of pendency of the suit/claim. Further, it has been submitted that at the time of compromise, the claimants-appellants were minor and were not eligible to arrive at the compromise. The compromise has not been proved. 6. The relevant provision under which this claim petition has been dismissed is Order 23 Rule 3 CPC which reads as follows - "3. Further, it has been submitted that at the time of compromise, the claimants-appellants were minor and were not eligible to arrive at the compromise. The compromise has not been proved. 6. The relevant provision under which this claim petition has been dismissed is Order 23 Rule 3 CPC which reads as follows - "3. Compromise of suit.—Where it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court that a suit has been adjusted wholly or in part by any lawful agreement or compromise in writing and signed by the parties, or where the defendant satisfies the plaintiff in respect of the whole or any part of the subject matter of the suit, the court shall order such agreement, compromise or satisfaction to be recorded, and shall pass a decree in accordance therewith so far as it relates to the parties to the suit, whether or not the subject matter of the agreement, compromise or satisfaction is the same as the subject matter of the suit." 7. A bare reading of the above provision goes to show that where it is proved to the satisfaction of the court that a suit or part of it has been adjusted by a compromise, the Court can pass order relying on the compromise. There is no bar that the compromise should be arrived at between the parties during pendency of the suit. Hence, the contention of the appellant that provisions of Order 23 Rule 3 are not applicable in the present case, is not acceptable. 8. Other contention of the learned counsel is that no compromise has been arrived at and it was not a lawful compromise as the appellants were minor at the time of compromise. Reply to the application under O. 23 R. 3 CPC filed by the claimants goes to show that it has not been stated in the reply that the compromise has not been arrived. hence, factum of compromise has not been disputed by the appellants. AW.1 Maliram has proved the compromise which was submitted before the Tribunal as Exhibit-A1 and it was further stated by Maliram that compromise bears thumb impression of Durga Devi who is grandmother of the claimants/appellants and also signatures of maternal uncle of the appellants. It was also stated by Maliram (AW.1) that according to the compromise, money has been paid and receipt, Exhibit-A2, has also been produced and proved. It was also stated by Maliram (AW.1) that according to the compromise, money has been paid and receipt, Exhibit-A2, has also been produced and proved. AW.2 Udai Singh has also corroborated the factum of compromise. Claimant Shankarlal has also stated as NAW.1 before the Tribunal and admitted that on compromise and receipt he has signed and he has further admitted that his two younger brothers were living with his maternal uncle and he was living with his grandmother Durga Devi, who has executed the compromise. Looking at this evidence, it can safely be inferred that after death of mother of the claimants/appellants, they were residing and were in the custody of their maternal uncle and grandmother and they have arrived at a compromise with the respondents. Hence, when factum of compromise has not been disputed and receipt of money has also been proved, the Tribunal has rightly arrived at a conclusion that when money has already been taken by the claimants, the claim petition is not maintainable. 9. Counsel for the appellants has relied upon the decision in 2005 ACJ 1598 , Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation vs. Kumudavalli & Ors. where the claim petition has been compromised before the Lok Adalat but, it as not acted by the court as it was not in the interest of minors. But, here it has not been stated that the compromise was not in the interest of minors. Rather, compromise has been arrived at by the guardians of the appellants and money has been received. 10. Counsel has further relied on the decision in 1999(3) TAC 198 (MP), Gomti Bai & Ors. vs. Anantram Chhirolia & Ors. where interest of the minors have not been safeguarded and no amount has been paid. Hence, the facts to the case in hand are quite different. 11. Looking at the above, the reasonings and conclusions arrived at by the Tribunal are just and proper and no interference is called for by this court. 12. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.