The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Permanent Lok Adalath did not have the jurisdiction to decide a claim petition filed by an injured in a motor accident case for compensation, as the statutory position currently obtains only the Tribunals constituted under the Motor Vehicles Act have jurisdiction to decide such cases.

The New India Assurance Company challenges the awards passed by the Permanent Lok Adalath for Public Utility Services essentially on the ground that the said body had acted without jurisdiction in proceeding to decide a claim petition filed by the injured in a motor accident case, for compensation. Since the contentions raised in these two writ petitions are common, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. I will refer to WPC.No.30059/2008, taken as the leading case.

2. The first respondent met with an accident on 211.2005 when he was walking along the road and a car owned by the second respondent and driven by the third respondent hit him. He sustained serious injuries and he claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.6 lakhs. He filed OP.No.465/2007 before the 4th respondent which is the Permanent Lok Adalath for Public Utility Services. On receipt of summons from the Permanent Lok Adalath the petitioner entered appearance and disputed the maintainability of the petition. It was contended that the Permanent Lok Adalath has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter under section 22C (8) read with section 22D of the Legal Services Authorities Act 1987, (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The claimant and the respondents were not able to come to a settlement. Thereupon the Permanent Lok Adalath proceeded to adjudicate the dispute and by Ext.P3 the claimant was permitted to realize an amount of Rs.52,000/- from the petitioner, the third respondent before the Permanent Lok Adalath with 9% interest from the date of petition till realisation. This has been challenged in this writ petition.

.3. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the first respondent. The petitioner contends that the Permanent Lok Adalath is established under section 22B of the Act and exercises jurisdiction in respect of one or more Public Utility Services. It does not exercise a general jurisdiction and therefore it does have the powers to adjudicate any dispute unless the dispute is in respect of one or more public utility services. Public utility service is defined under section 22 A(b) of the Act and the claim made by the injured or legal representatives of the deceased person, in a

.petition claiming compensation for injuries suffered in a motor accident, will not be a dispute touching upon the Insurance service as defined under section 22 A(b) of the Act. Consequently, the Permanent Lok Adalath was bereft of jurisdiction to consider Ext.P1 or to pass an award in the nature of Ext.P3, apparently on the premise that it is entitled to adjudicate a claim petition for compensation, like a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. In other words, the challenge against the award Ext.P3 is on the ground that it is bereft of jurisdiction.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the Motor Vehicles Act inter alia provides for compulsory insurance for any motor vehicle and consequently the claim by an injured in a motor accident against the owner or driver of the vehicle would also be a claim against the insurer and the dispute raised in that behalf would charactorise itself as a dispute touching upon the insurance service. He therefore contends that Permanent Lok Adalath would have jurisdiction to decide a claim petition filed by the injured in a motor accident case. Alternatively, he submits, that such jurisdiction must be vouchsafed in favour of the Permanent Lok Adalath atleast in cases where the insurance company does not deny the existence of a valid insurance coverage of the vehicle in question, which was involved in the accident. I find that the question raised in this regard is not traversed by any judgment of the Supreme Court or this court. Therefore, I have anxiously considered the issue.

.5. Chapter VI-A of the Act was substituted by amendment of the Legal Services Authorities Act brought about in the year 2002. Section 22A (a) defines Permanent Lok Adalath as one establish