In the instant writ petition the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing/setting aside of the Award dated 12.12.2006 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Dhanbad in exercise of its power under the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 through which he has directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 5,00,000/- with interest @ 9% to the respondent no. 11.

2. The facts, in brief, are set out as under:-

The respondent herein filed a claim application for payment of the sum assured to the extent of Rs. 5,00,000/- on account of death of Dhananjay Kumar Singh who was covered under personal accident policy with the petitioner. However, the petitioner authority disputed the claim on the ground that no supporting document regarding specific cause of death was enclosed and accordingly repudiated the claim vide its letter dated 23.11.2004. The respondent herein filed the claim against the aforesaid order before Permanent Lok Adalat, Dhanbad which was registered as P.L. Case No. 1253 of 2005. Upon notice the petitioner authority challenged the maintainability of the case before the Permanent Lok Adalat.

3. The main contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that Permanent Lok Adalat had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the claim of the respondent and it should have remitted the matter back to the Civil Courts. It has further been submitted that unless the conciliation proceeding was conducted as required under Section 22-C(4) of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 it had no jurisdiction to decide the dispute in absence of any compromise or settlement. Finally, the Award was passed on 12.12.2006 by the Permanent Lok Adalat in exercise of the power under the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 vide which the petitioner authority was directed to pay Rs. 5,00,000/- along" with interest @ 9% per annum to the respondent herein.

4. The moot question raised before this court by the learned counsel for the petitioner is as to whether the Permanent Lok Adalat had the jurisdiction to adjudicate and decide the dispute and give the Award. The second contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner-Company is that the Permanent 'Lok Adalat was established under Chapter-VIA of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 only to act as a conciliator or an arbitrator and not to act as an adjudicator.

5. I have considered the pleadings, rival submissions as well as the settled law on the issue. Chapter-VIA was inserted in the Act in 2002 (Act 37 of 2002) w.e.f. 11.6.2002. By the aforesaid amendment. Sections 22-A to 22-E were inserted. Clause (a) of Section 22-A defines "Permanent Lok Adalat" which means a Permanent Lok Adalat established under subsection (1) of Section 22-B. Section 22-B confers power upon the Central Authority and the State Authority to establish by notification Permanent Lok Adalat at such places to exercise such jurisdiction in respect of one or more public utility services. Section 22-C is the relevant provision which provides for settlement of disputes and also spells out the, power and jurisdiction of the Permanent Lok Adalat. Section 22-C reads as under:-

"22-C. Cognizance of cases by Permanent Lok Adalat.-(1) Any party to a dispute may, before the dispute is brought before any Court, make an application to the Permanent Lok Adalat for the settlement of dispute:

Provided that the Permanent Lok Adalat shall not have jurisdiction in respect or any matter relating to an offence not compoundable under any law:

Provided further that the Permanent Lok Adalat shall also not have jurisdiction in the matter where the value of the property in dispute exceeds ten lakh rupees:

Provided also that the Central Government, may, by notification, increase the limit of ten lakh rupees specified in the second proviso in consultation with the Central Authority.

(2) After an application is made under sub-section (1) to the Permanent Lok Adalat, no party to that applica