1. Taking exception to the order passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat (PLA) (Public Utility Services) (PUS), Bastar at Jagdalpur constituted under Section 22B of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (hereinafter called as “the Act of 1987”) by which the said PLA (PUS) has passed the award directing payment of compensation, this batch of writ petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India have been filed by the petitioners herein.

2. Since common question of fact and law is involved in these writ petitions, they were heard analogously and are being decided by this common order.

For the sake of convenience, the facts mentioned in WP 227 No. 265 of 2017 are being taken up as lead case:-

2.1 The claimant/respondent herein filed an application under Section 22A of the Act of 1987 before the PLA (PUS) stating inter-alia that husband of the respondent namely Radheshyam Rathore has got a Group Personal Accident Insurance Policy issued from the petitioner/Insurance Company for the period commencing from 1.2.2011 to 31.1.2012, he died during which the insurance policy was in force as he was murdered on 2.10.2012 and offence under Sections 302 and 120B/34 of the IPC was registered against the accused persons. Claim was made by the respondent/claimant to the petitioner-Insurance Company, which was denied to her leading to filing of the application. The PLA (PUS) on 22.8.2014 directed the other side to file reply. Ultimately, reply was filed and case was directed to be placed for compromise on 13.10.2014. On 18.11.2014 the PLA (PUS) directed that the matter be placed before the National Lok Adalat and if no settlement is arrived at between the parties, then the matter will be taken up for hearing on 9.12.2014. The matter was not settled in the National Lok Adalat and ultimately, the impugned award was passed on 17.8.2016, which has been questioned by the petitioner-Insurance Company in the instant writ petition.

3. Mr. Bhaskar Payashi, learned counsel for the petitioners, would submit that the PLA (PUS) has committed legal error in not undertaking any conciliation proceedings for settlement of the dispute after written statement/reply is filed by other side and only done the formality by sending the matter to the National Lok Adalat in name of conciliation and after receipt of the record, straightway considered the matter on merits and passed the award, which runs contrary to the provisions contained in Section 22C (8) of the Act of 1987 which provides that where the parties fail to reach at an agreement under sub-section (7), the Permanent Lok Adalat shall, if the dispute does not relate to any offence, decide the dispute. Therefore, the impugned award is liable to be set aside and the writ petitions be allowed.

4. Mr. Praveen Kumar Tulsyan, learned counsel for the respondent/claimant, would support the impugned award and submit that twice the matter was sent for conciliation before the National Lok Adalat, but the matter could not be settled in the National Lok Adalat, therefore, the award was passed by the PLA (PUS), as such, the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost circumspection.

6. Before considering the rival submissions made by the parties, it would be appropriate to notice introduction of Chapter VI-A i.e. pre-litigation, conciliation and settlement introduced in the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. Chapter VI-A including Sections 22A, 22B and 22C of the Act of 1987 was brought into statutory book in the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (Amendment) Act, 2002 w.e.f. 11-6-2002. The statement of object and reasons appended with the Amendment Act, 2002 to set up Permanent Lok Adalat for providing compulsory pre-litigative mechanism for conciliation and settlement of cases relating to public utility services. Section 3 (i) states as under:-

“3. The salient features