A.C. Upadhyay, J.

1. The Petitioners have challenged the validity of judgment and award dated 29.12.2010, passed by the learned Permanent Lok Adalat, Tripura, Agartala, in connection with LA Case (PUS) No. 05 of 2010, wherein the Petitioners were directed to pay the assured sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-(rupees one lakh) to the claimant Respondent within a period of one month together with interest thereon and also cost of Rs. 5,000/-.

2. I have heard Mr. A. Lodh, learned Counsel for the writ Petitioners, and Mr. T.D. Majumder, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent.

3. The pleaded case of the Petitioners is that the Respondent as claimant lodged a complaint before the learned Permanent Lok Adalat, Tripura, Agartala, stating therein, that the opposite parties-Petitioners, as insurer, had issued a Postal Life Insurance Policy bearing No. NE-27170-CS dated 12.04.2006, in the name of her husband Harilal Ghosh, for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-(rupees one lakh). The aforesaid sum was proposed to be matured on 20.03.2019. However, unfortunately, the husband of the Respondent died on 10.01.2007. Accordingly, the Respondent claimed benefit of the insurance policy before the Petitioners. However, by a letter dated 17.06.2009, the Petitioners repudiated the claim of the Respondent on the ground that the husband of the Respondent died due to hypertension within eleven months from the date of acceptance of the proposal, whereas in the proposal form the husband of the Respondent had declared that he was in sound health and he had never suffered from any disease like 'hypertension'. Since it was found in the death certificate of the insured that the cause of death was 'an old case of uncontrolled hypertension', the claim was repudiated.

4. As against the aforesaid claim, the Petitioners filed written statement, disputing the claim of the Respondent by stating therein, that the proposal form was duly filled in and signed by the insured person in his own handwriting and on the basis of such declaration, furnished by the insurant, PLI policy for Rs. 1,00,000/- was accepted by the competent authority of the Petitioners on 20.03.2006. It was, however, contended in the written statement that subsequently it was found that the insured had furnished inaccurate information and suppressed the material facts at the time of opening of the policy of insurance, since it was found in the death certificate of the insurant that the insurant died due to 'cardio respiratory disease, which was an old case of uncontrolled hypertension' and was continuing within eleven months from the date of acceptance of the insurance proposal.

5. During proceeding of the case on the basis of the above pleadings, learned Permanent Lok Adalat framed as many as 4 (four) issues and also obtained evidences on affidavit of the witnesses of both the parties, which were supported by various documents to sustain their respective stand. Thereafter, on appraisal of the evidence on record and after threadbare discussions of all the issues so framed, the learned Permanent Lok Adalat awarded the claim of the Respondent as aforesaid, which is the subject matter of the instant writ petition.

6. Mr. A. Lodh, learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the Petitioners have never given consent for inviting decision on merits from the Permanent Lok Adalat, on the contrary, there was clear denial to conciliate the case before the Permanent Lok Adalat by disputing the genuineness of the claim. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners has relied upon the following decision in Divisional Manager National Insurance Company Vs- Usha Singh, reported in AIR 2011 Jhar 5 and has submitted that unless the consent is given in writing, the Permanent Lok Adalat has no power, jurisdiction and authority to decide the issue on merits and further submitted that there is clear breach of Sub-section (7) of Section 22C of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (in short 'the Act'). Moreover, there is breach of Sub-se