R. Banumathi, C.J. - These Letters Patent Appeals are preferred against the dismissal of the writ petitions, W.P(C) No.2367/2009 and W.P(C) No.2588/2009, by which learned Single Judge confirmed the award passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Jamshedpur dated 12.1.2009 in P.L.A Case Nos.295/2008 and dated 2.3.2009 in P.L.A Case No.299/2008.

2. The respondent is the widow of late Nishan Singh, who died on 4.5.2006, leaving the respondent with two minor children. The husband of the respondent-Claimant had two life insurance policies bearing Policy No.553725125 and Policy No. 551387031 as under:-

After death of her husband, the respondent being the nominee in respect of the above policies made an application before the Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation, on 1.8.2006, seeking for payment of the amount of Rs.10,00,000/-under Policy No. 553725125 and Rs.3,64,000/-under Policy No. 551387031.

3. In pursuance of the application, the appellants are said to have made an inquiry into the matter and the Investigating Officer submitted the report on 2.7.2007. After submitting the death claim, the respondent was regularly visiting the office of the Appellant-Insurance Company. According to the respondent-claimant, on 12.3.2008, the appellants handed over a copy of the letter to the respondent, by which the death claim was refused by the appellant. The payment of the insurance amount has been denied to the respondent on the ground that the policy holder/husband of the respondent-claimant was in the habit of taking drugs and he had taken treatment of anti-addiction medication and the Life Assured did not disclose about the illness and treatment at the time of taking/revival of the policy.

4. Being dissatisfied with the order passed by the Senior Divisional Manager with regard to her claim, the respondent sent registered notice to the appellants on 7.4.2008; but she did not receive any reply. Then the respondent filed an application before the Permanent Lok Adalat, Jamshedpur, under Section 22-C of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 in P.L.A Case No. 295/2008 and P.L.A Case No.299/2008 seeking payment for the amount insured for the policies in question. Before the Permanent Lok Adalat, during conciliation the appellant denied to conciliate on the ground that the deceased, late Nishan Singh, had suppressed the fact regarding his illness and on that ground, the claim was repudiated. As such, Permanent Lok Adalat had taken the matter for determination under Section 22C(8) and 22D of the Legal Services Authorities Act. Both the parties adduced oral and documentary evidence. Considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties, the Permanent Lok Adalat held that repudiation of the claim by the Insurer-LIC does not seem to be justifiable and also against the principles of natural justice and passed the award for Rs.10,00,000/-towards the death claim under the Policy No.553725125 and Rs.3,64,000/-under Policy No. 551387031.

5. Being aggrieved by the award dated 12.1.2009 and 6.3.2009 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, the appellants filed writ petitions in W.P(C) No. 2367/2009 and W.P(C) No.2588/2009 respectively. Referring to the decision rendered in the case of Interglobe Aviation Limited v. N. Satchidanand [(2011) 7 SCC 463], learned Single Judge held that the Permanent Lok Adalat has jurisdiction to decide any controversy between the parties under Section 22C of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. Learned Single Judge further held that sub-section (4) of Section 22E of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 specifically provides that every award made by the Permanent Lok Adalat under the Act shall be final and shall n