Aggrieved by a direction to pay Rs. 2,54,000/- with interest at the rate of 14% per annum, the petitioner-United India Insurance Company Ltd. has preferred the writ petition challenging order dated 01.02.2007 in PLA Case No.51 of 2006 passed by Permanent Lok Adalat, Jamshedpur.

2. The narration of facts in the writ petition discloses that, the respondent namely, Md. Azeem preferred a claim case being PLA Case No. 51 of 2006 in the Permanent Lok Adalat at Jamshedpur claiming payment of total loss claimed on account of the accident of the insured vehicle. The Complainant is the registered owner of the vehicle (Tata PickUp Van) vide Registration No. JH05E8829 and the said vehicle was insured vide Insurance Police No. 210801/31/05/01537 which was valid for a period of one year between 26.10.2005 to 25.10.2006. The insured vehicle met with an accident on 29.11.2005 at about 5.30 am and the vehicle was seriously damaged and the khalasi died on the spot. A case being Ranchi Sadar P.S. Case No. 105 of 2005 dated 29.11.2005 under Sections 279, 304A and 427 of the Indian Penal Code was registered. The Complainant informed the Insurance company and the vehicle was surveyed by the surveyor of the Insurance company. An estimate for repair of the damaged vehicle was obtained by the Complainant however, the Insurance company advised the complainant not to get the vehicle repaired because the estimate for repair was found excessive. Considering the insured value for Rs.2,30,000/, the Insurance company declared the total loss to the vehicle as Rs. 2,29,000/and processed the claim for the same amount. However, inspite of repeated request by the Complainant, the claim was not settled and vide letter dated 05.09.2006, the Insurance claim, that is, Insurance Claim No. 210801/31/5/00115 was repudiated by the petitioner-Insurance company on the ground that the vehicle was plying without Fitness Certificate when the accident occurred. In response to letter dated 05.09.2006, the Complainant submitted his reply vide letter dated 12.09.2006 informing the Insurance company that vide Reference no. 819 dated 18.08.2005, the Complainant had deposited fee for grant of Fitness Certificate and the Fitness Certificate was issued on 29.11.2005. However, the Insurance company repudiated the Insurance claim on the ground that at the time of accident the vehicle was plying without valid Fitness Certificate.

3. The Insurance company appeared before the Permanent Lok Adalat and filed written statement taking the plea that the insured vehicle violated the terms and conditions of the policy and therefore, the Insurance company was not bound to indemnify the Complainant for damage caused to the vehicle. The Fitness Certificate of the vehicle had expired on 22.07.2005 and a fresh certificate for the insured vehicle was issued on 29.11.2005. The complainant was not authorized to ply the vehicle on road merely after filing application with requisite fee for grant of Fitness Certificate. The Fitness Certificate was issued after 10 am on 29.11.2005 whereas, the accident had occurred at about 5.30 am and thus, it is apparent that, at the time when the vehicle met with an accident, it was plying without a valid Fitness Certificate. It is further stated that the Permanent Lok Adalat committed an error in law in adjudicating the dispute because once the claim of the insured vehicle is contested and the liability is denied by the Insurance company, the matter should have been referred to the civil court for adjudication. The assessment in the surveyor's report cannot be construed as admission of the liability by the Insurance company. The Permanent Lok Adalat has no jurisdiction to take evidence because the Permanent Lok Adalat cannot be said to be a court within the meaning of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Permanent Lok Adalat has no jurisdiction to declare the repudiation of Insurance claim by the Insurance company, null and void because the Permanent Lok Adalat cannot