Seeking quashing of award dated 05.05.2008 in PLA Case No. 862 of 2007, the present writ petition has been filed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner-Oriental Insurance Company is a Government Company within meaning of Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956. The tractor bearing registration no. JH01A1933 with trailor registration no.JH01A1934 belonging to one Raj Kumar Sinha, husband of the respondent no. 1 were insured by the petitioner-Insurance Company for the period between 31.03.2006 to 30.03.2007. It is stated that on 31.12.2006, an accident took place in which the deceased namely, late Raj Kumar Sinha who was posted as ASI died. On the statement of one Kartik Singh Munda, Constable, a First Information Report being Namkum P.S. Case No. 200/2006 under Section 279, 337 and 304A of IPC was registered. An application under Section 22C of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 r/w section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for claim of Rs. 9,70,000/- with 9% interest, was filed by the legal heirs and claimants of deceased late Raj Kumar Sinha. A separate application under Section 140 of MV Act, 1988 seeking award of compensation of Rs. 50,000/under "No Fault Liability" was also filed. The petitioner-Insurance Company appeared and filed written statement denying the claim on the ground that it is a case of contributory negligence. The owner of the tractor also appeared and filed written statement denying his liability under Section 140 of the MV Act, 1988. However, order/award dated 05.05.2008 directing the petitioner-Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/as interim compensation to the respondent no. 1 was passed.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

4. Mrs. Nisha Thakur, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a permanent Lok Adalat has no adjudicatory power. It has no power to decide a dispute under Section 22C (8) and it is a Court only for a limited purpose which acts as a conciliator which is empowered with the administrative power to decide the dispute but it does not have an adjudicatory power and it does not perform judicial function. It is submitted that in view of the judgment in "State of Punjab and others vs. Ganpat Raj" reported in (2006) 8 SCC 364, in "State of Punjab vs. Phulan Rani & Anr." reported in (2004) 7 SCC 555 and in "National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Most. Budhani Kisku and another", reported in 2007 (4) JLJR 292, the award is liable to be set-aside. It is further submitted that since the facts have been disputed by the parties and there was no settlement/compromise arrived between the parties, no order under Section 140 of the MV Act, 1988 can be passed.

5. As against the above, the learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 relied on the decision in "Bar Council of India vs. Union of India", reported in (2012) 8 SCC 243 and submits that the permanent Lok Adalat constituted under Section 22 B (1) exercises conciliatory as well adjudicatory power. It is further submitted that the occurrence is not denied and the husband of the respondent no. 1, late Raj Kumar Sinha died in an accident is also not denied and therefore, the compensation of Rs. 50,000/awarded to the respondent under Section 140 of the MV Act, 1988 was just and proper and no interference is required in the matter.

6. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record.

7. Before adverting to the facts of the case, it is necessary to notice the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "S.N. Pandey vs. Union of India and another" reported in (2012) 8 SCC 261. In the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under :

2 “……..Lok Adalat is a mode of dispute resolution which has been in vogue since over two decades. Hundreds of thousands of cases have been settled through this mechanism and is undisputedly a fast means of dispensation of justice…………”

8. In "Bar Council of India" case after analysing vari