The petitioners who are the Insurance Companies, in all these writ petitions are challenging the jurisdiction of the Permanent Lok Adalats to entertain and adjudicate the claim petitions under the Motor Vehicles Act, against them by the “third parties’, i.e., a person who is not a party to the Contract of Insurance.

2. For a proper appreciation of the legal issues involved in the case, the factual background is of utmost importance. Therefore, the facts in one of these petitions is set down as hereunder; The petitioner in Writ Petition No.12548 of 2008 is the insurer carrying on business as contemplated under the Insurance Act, 1938. Respondents 1 to 5 instituted a claim petition before the Permanent Lok Adalat, Mysore, alleging that they are the wife, children and mother of one Rajaiah @ Raju. That, on 4.3.2008 at about 5.45 PM the said Rajaiah @ Raju was proceeding on his bicycle on Hunsur-Periyapatna main road. The driver of the vehicle bearing No. KA-01/MC-4996 drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the bicycle which resulted in injuries to Rajaiah @ Raju and he succumbed to the injuries. A sum of Rs.9,45,000/- was claimed as compensation. The Permanent Lok Adalat, Mysore, registered the case as PLA No. 54/2008 and caused a notice on the petitioner to appear before it to answer the said claim. The petitioner filed an application under Section 22B, C and D of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 for rejection of the claim petition as not maintainable before the Permanent Lok Adalat. The said request was rejected. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner is before this Court seeking quashing of the order dated 30.7.2008 over-ruling the objections of the petitioner.

3. The petitioner contends that, the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (hereinafter for short referred to as ‘the Act’) was enacted to constitute Legal Services Authorities to provide for free and competent legal services to the weaker section of the society and to ensure that opportunities for securing justice are not denied to any citizen by reason of economic or other disabilities and to organize Lok Adalats to secure the operation of the legal system that promotes justice on a basis of equal opportunity. Chapter CI-A was inserted by Act 32/2002 w.e.f. 11.6.2002 for pre-litigation conciliation and settlement. The said Chapter is not applicable to the claims under the provisions of M.V. Act, as the award passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat is final. The Permanent Lok Adalat by passing the impugned order has assumed jurisdiction. It has proceeded on the assumption that the policy of insurance procured by the owner of a motor vehicle and the service also would include a claim made by the beneficiary under a policy of insurance procured by the insured. The Permanent Lok Adalat proceeds to hold that the Apex Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd., vs Ajay Sinha & another, reported in CDJ 2008 SC 996 has not laid down any ration decidendi. Therefore, the petitioner has preferred this Writ Petition challenging the impugned order. After service of notice, the respondents entered appearance.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that, though insurance service is included in public utility services, the Permanent Lok Adalat can take cognizance of cases by any party to a dispute thereby meaning party to the insurance contract. A person who is not a party to such insurance contract cannot maintain a dispute before the Permanent Lok Adalat under Section 22 of the Act. Conversely, the Permanent Lok Adalat has no jurisdiction to entertain a dispute at the instance of a party who is not a party to the contract. Therefore, they submit that the motor accident claims are outside the purview of the Permanent Lok Adalat as a claim under Section 165 of the MV Act arises upon the claim for compensation in respect of accidents involving the death of or bodily injury to persons arising out of the usage of motor veh