JUDGMENT :

Cheekati Manavendranath Roy, J.

1. By way of this writ petition M/s. HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Ltd., the petitioner herein, challenges the legality and validity of the Award dated 15.11.2018 of the Permanent Lok Adalat, Kadapa, passed in PLAC No. 226 of 2018 directing the petitioner/Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs. 50.00 lakhs with interest at the rate of 16% p.a. to the 2nd respondent/nominee towards claim under policy bearing No. 19111262.

2. Facts of the writ petition are rather jejune and may be stated as follows:

3. The parties herein will be referred as the claimant and the Insurance Company in this writ petition.

4. The claimant/petitioner in PLAC No. 226 of 2018 is the wife of late N. Nagi Reddy. Her husband Nagi Reddy, during his life-time, has taken a policy dated 24.4.2017 on his life from the HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Ltd., for a sum of Rs. 50.00 lakhs and paid premium of Rs. 29,945/- to the Insurance Company. The policy certificate bearing No. 19111262 was issued to N. Nagi Reddy. He has shown the claimant, who is his wife, as nominee in the said policy.

5. Thereafter, N. Nagi Reddy died of heart attack on 16.11.2017. So, the claimant who is his wife and nominee under the policy, approached the Insurance Company on 2.1.2018, informed them that the policy holder Nagi Reddy died on 16.11.2017 and submitted her claim form requesting Insurance Company to release the amount payable under the policy on account of death of her husband, the policy holder.

6. The Insurance Company has repudiated the claim of the claimant on the ground that Nagi Reddy did not disclose that there are existing policies taken from other insurance companies, in the relevant column in the proposal form submitted by him for issuance of policy and that he has suppressed the said fact and did not disclose the true facts in the proposal form.

7. Therefore, the claimant approached the Permanent Lok Adalat, Kadapa. The Permanent Lok Adalat has taken cognizance of the claim of the claimant under Section 22-A(b) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (for short, "the Act") and issued notice to the Insurance Company under Section 22-C(3) of the Act. Despite receipt of notice, none appeared on behalf of the Insurance Company before the Permanent Lok Adalat. Therefore, holding that, as no settlement could be arrived on account of non-appearance of the Insurance Company, the Permanent Lok Adalat decided the dispute on merits on the basis of the affidavit filed by the claimant in lieu of her evidence and Exs. A1 to A6 marked on behalf of the claimant. The Permanent Lok Adalat held that the nondisclosure of the fact that there are other policies existing in the proposal form is not a material fact and that by itself cannot be a valid ground to repudiate the claim under the insurance policy and thereby allowed the claim of the claimant and passed the impugned award directing the Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs. 50.00 lakhs to the claimant towards the claim under the policy bearing No. 19111262 with interest at the rate of 16% p.a. from the date of death of the policy holder i.e., 16.11.2017 till the date of realization of the said amount.

8. The Insurance Company seeks to assail the said Award on the ground that the Permanent Lok Adalat has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute without making an effort for settlement between the parties and even otherwise, the Permanent Lok Adalat cannot adjudicate the dispute and it has no jurisdiction to decide the dispute on merits.

9. Therefore, feeling aggrieved by the award, the Insurance Company has filed the present writ petition assailing the legality and validity of the impugned Award.

10. The claimant resisted the writ petition and she has filed a counter-affidavit denying the material averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. She denied that her husband late N. Nagi Reddy had other existing insurance policies at the time of submitting proposal fo