The present petition has been preferred mainly for challenging the order, passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Dhanbad, dated 14th September, 2007, in Permanent Lok Adalat Case No. 1312 of 2004 (Annexure-1 to the memo of petition), whereby, the Permanent Lok Adalat had decided the claim, on merits in favour of the respondents.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that the Permanent Lok Adalat, Dhanbad has no power, jurisdiction and authority to decide the dispute of motor accident claim, on merits. Predominant role to be played by the Permanent Lok Adalat is of Conciliator and not of an adjudicator.

Secondly, it is submitted that no written consent was given by the petitioner to the Permanent Lok Adalat, Dhanbad for deciding the dispute, on merits, and, therefore, also looking to the decision, rendered by this Court, in the case of Eastern-Central Railway & Anr. vs. Ashok Kumar Verma & Ors. as reported in 2009(4) JLJR Page No. 129, the Permanent Lok Adalat, Dhanbad had no power, jurisdiction and authority to decide the dispute, on merits, and hence, the said impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside.

It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that looking to the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chairman, Thiruvalluvar Transport Corporation vs. Consumer Protection Council, reported in AIR 1995 SC 1384 (especially looking to the Paragraph-6 thereof), whenever a Motor Accident Claim Tribunal is working, Consumer Protection Forum/Commission, cannot decide Motor Accident Claim matters, because of existence of Motor Accident Claim Tribunal and, therefore, in this case also the Permanent Lok Adalat cannot decide the dispute, on merits, because there is already an existence of Motor Accident Claim Tribunal under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

It is also submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that looking to the written statement, filed by the present petitioner in Permanent Lok Adalat Case No. 1312 of 2004 (Annexure-1 of the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner), the present petitioner has never contested the case before the Permanent Lok Adalat, on merits and it is stated in Paragraph No.2 of the written statement that the claim of the original applicant before the Permanent Lok Adalat is maintainable neither on facts nor on law. There are also further Paragraphs in the written statement like Paragraphs Nos. 23, 26, 27 etc., whereby, the present petitioner was opposing the claim of the original claimant by teeth and nail. Never any consent has been given by the present petitioner before the Permanent Lok Adalat for arriving at a decision, on merits.

It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the role of the Permanent Lok Adalat is not of an adjudicator, but, is of a conciliator. Never any terms of settlement were offered by the Permanent Lok Adalat, as required under sub-section (7) of Section 22-C of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 and therefore, also the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside.

It has been held by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr., as reported in 2008(3) JLJR Page 513, that it is prime duty of the Permanent Lok Adalat to offer terms of settlement under sub-section (7) of Section 22-C of the Act, 1987. Thus, the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal being in existence, the Permanent Lok Adalat, Dhanbad cannot decide the dispute, on merits, and, therefore, the order at Annexure-1 deserves to be quashed and set aside.

3. I have heard learned counsel for Respondent No.1, who has submitted that the present petitioner had given consent before the Permanent Lok Adalat, Dhanbad and therefore, the dispute has been decided, on merits. This aspect of the matter has also been referred in internal Page No.5 of the impugned order (Annexure-'1') passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Dhanbad. .

It is also submitted by the learned