Heard counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner in this writ application has prayed for quasaing the order dated 27.2.2008 (Annexure-1) passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Jamshedpur, in PLA case No. 159 of 2007, whereby the Permanent Lok Adalat had directed the petitioner-Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs.4,45,000/- to the claimants, namely, the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 by way of compensation.

3. From the facts stated, it appears that the claimants (Respondent Nos. 1 to 4) had filed the claim under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, before the Permanent Lok Adalat, against the petitioner-Insurance Company as also against the owner of the offending truck which was involved in the motor accident resulting in the death of the deceased, husband of Respondent No.1.

Upon receipt of the notices, the petitioner-Insurance Company had appeared before the Permanent Lok Adalat and filed its written statement. In its pleadings, the Insurance Company appears to have refused to consent for any conciliation on the dispute on the grounds stated. Notwithstanding such refusal, the Permanent Lok Adalat proceeded to decide the dispute on merits and had passed the impugned order directing the petitioner-Insurance Company to pay the amount by way of compensation.

4. Assailing the impugned order of the Permanent Lok Adalat, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order has been passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat by way of transgressing its own jurisdiction and authority. Learned counsel explains that since the petitioner had denied and refused to consent for the dispute being resolved by the Permanent Lok Adalat, the same ought to have been dropped then and there and the claimants ought to have been referred to the Motor Vehicles Claims Tribunal for seeking their relief. Learned counsel adds further that the Permanent Lok Adalat had also erred in failing to adopt and follow the procedure laid down under the provisions of Sec. 22(C) of the Legal Services Authority Act.

5. Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 would argue, on the other- hand, that though the petitioner-Insurance Company had refused for conciliation, but at the same time, such refusal was made on the basis of merits of the case and, therefore, the petitioner-Insurance Company cannot be allowed to resile now to say that it had not consented to decide the dispute under the jurisdiction of the Permanent Lok Adalat.

6. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and on going thorough the impugned order, I find that the Permanent Lok Adalat, in para-6 of the impugned order, has observed as followed:-

"During conciliation proceeding, O.P. No.2, M/s National Insurance Co. Ltd., denying the conciliation on the ground that the truck was being plied by the driver having no valid driving licence. In this regard, a petition has also been filed. As such, this case is taken for the determination on merit under Section 22C(8) and 22D of the Legal Services Authority Act".

7. As it appears from the impugned order, it is apparent that the petitioner-Insurance Company has refused to accept any conciliation in the matter of the dispute raised before it. It obviously implies therefore that the petitioner-Insurance Company did not agree to submit to the jurisdiction of the Permanent Lok Adalat. Under such circumstances, the Permanent Lok Adalat could not have proceeded to adjudicate the dispute on merits.

Furthermore, it also appears that even after having entertained the dispute, no attempt was made by the Permanent Lok Adalat to offer any terms of settlement to the parties concerned.

8. The scope of the powers of the Permanent Lok Adalat under the provisions of Section 22C and 22D of the Legal Services Authority Act, has been elaborately discussed and explained by this Court in several judgments. A Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr. reported in 2008 (3) JLJR 513, has held as follows:-•

"The duty of the Pe