CHANDRA BHUSHAN BAJPAI, J.

1. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that as award dated 26.09.2015 (Annexure-P/1) passed by Respondent No.2/Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Bastar at Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh in Case No. 35 of 2014, on the face of record, is illegal and without any authority vested in it and as such, no notice is required to be issued to the Respondents and the matter may be disposed of finally at the motion stage itself.

2. On due consideration, this Court is of the opinion that the present matter can be heard and disposed of finally at the motion stage without noticing the Respondents.

3. Facts in brief of the instant Writ Petition (227) are that the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Bastar at Jagdalpur in Case No. 35 of 2014 (Parasnath Jha v. Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited and another) has passed the impugned award dated 26.9.2015 on an application filed by Respondent No.1 herein before the Court below under Section 22 sub-section (1) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (for short 'the Act of 1987) for grant of compensation of Rs. 5, 50,000/-. The contesting parties were not willing to compromise the matter, therefore, the Court below proceeded further and disposed of the matter on its merits vide impugned award. The Applicant/Respondent No.1 was the owner of the vehicle No. CG-04DL-2480 and the same was insured with the Petitioner/Non-applicant for the period 26.9.2012 till 25.9.2013. On 5.3.2013, the said vehicle met with a serious accident as it hit a tree. In the said accident, the driver of the vehicle and one another person died on the spot itself. The information regarding accident was reported to Non-applicant/ Petitioner and the Surveyor of the Insurance Company conducted inspection and submitted his report in which he has mentioned that at the time of accident as the deceased driver Saroj Rai was not having valid and effective driving license. On the basis of the said report as there is a breach of policy conditions, the Petitioner/Non-applicant dismissed the claim filed by the Applicant/Respondent No.1. Thereafter, the Applicant/Respondent No.1 had filed an application before the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Bastar at Jagdalpur.

4. After due consideration, the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Bastar at Jagdalpur allowed the application of the Applicant/ Respondent No.1 filed under Section 22(1) of the Act of 1987 and passed the impugned award. As per paragraph 17 of the award, it directed the Non-applicant/ Petitioner to deposit Rs. 5,19,769/- and interest as directed and also other amounts under two other heads.

5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that till date, the Petitioner has not deposited any amount before the Court below. The Petitioner has assailed the impugned award by taking the ground that the award passed by the Court below is barred by jurisdiction and as such the same is illegal and improper. The Court below has committed jurisdictional error and failed to understand the provisions of Section 22C(8) of the Act. In support of the submissions advanced on behalf of the Petitioner, Learned counsel placed reliance upon an order passed in a matter decided by this Court in 2012 (2) C.G.L.J. Page 142 (Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited v. Dasru Patel and Others) wherein co-ordinate Bench of this Court has held as under :-

16. Therefore under the provisions of the M.V.C. Act, the claim has to be preferred against the insured and the driver. Insurance Company is also added as a party by virtue of Section 149(2) of the Act. No claim against the Insurance Company is maintainable without the owner of the vehicle or the driver of the vehicle being made a party to the proceedings. Whereas the claim for compensation is validly maintainable against the insured and the driver without making the Insurance Company, a party. The Tribunal constituted under the MVC Act has been con