The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the Permanent Lok Adalat to follow the prescribed procedure under the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 before awarding interim compensation.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent no. 4.

2. Earlier notices were issued upon the respondents and as per the office note, service of notice on respondent nos. 1, 2 and 5 were effected. Service of notice on respondent no. 3 was thereafter effected by the petitioner through paper publication as per provision of Order 5 Rule 20 CPC. However, no one has entered appearance on behalf of these respondents.

3. The Award dated 06.03.2010 (Annexure-2) passed by Permanent Lok Adalat, Ranchi in P.L.A. Case No. 905 of 2007 is under challenge by the petitioner – National Insurance Company on the ground that in a motor vehicle accident claim raised by the claimant/ respondent nos. 1 and 2, the learned Permanent Lok Adalat has awarded interim compensation to the tune of Rs.25,000/under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 while also awarding the same amount to be paid by respondent no. 4 – Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. in teeth of the procedure prescribed under Section 22(C) (4) to (7) of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 and the law laid by the Court.

4. Two vehicles bearing registration nos. JH 01M 6531 (Maruti Alto Car) and BR 14C 8108 (Truck) were involved in an accident which led to death of the daughter and son of the claimant nos. 1 and 2 namely Mitali Bannerjee and Vijay Kumar Chakravarty respectively. The incident occurred on 04.08.2006 at about 9:30 am near Chema Chowk, Chanho Police Station within the district of Ranchi. The impugned Award has been primarily challenged on the ground that the learned Permanent Lok Adalat failed to follow the mandatory procedure under Section 22(C) (4) to (7) of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 before proceeding to award the interim compensation under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act. Reliance has been placed on the Judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge of this Court reported in 2009(3) JCR 374 (Jhar.) wherein Hon'ble Court has been pleased to interpret relevant provisions of the Act of 1987 whereunder the Permanent Lok Adalat may proceed to decide the dispute on merits under Section 22(C)(8) of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987. However, such decision on merits has to be rendered by following the procedure under Section 22(C) (4) to (7) of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987.

5. It is submitted that neither was any conciliation undertaken nor any terms of settlement framed and offered to the parties before proceeding to decide the claim on merits. Therefore, the impugned Award is not tenable in law. Reliance has also been placed in an unreported Judgment dated 22.08.2012 passed by this Court in the case of Radheshyam Kumar Ram Vs. Gurubari Hoe and another in W.P.(C) No. 1297 of 2007 and other analogous cases.

Learned counsel for the petitioner does not have the instruction to say whether the amount awarded has been actually distributed to the claimant or not during pendency of the writ petition.

6. Upon hearing counsel for the petitioner and respondent no. 4 and on perusal of materials on record including the impugned Award, it does not appear that the learned Permanent Lok Adalat while adjudicating the claim on merits made any effort to enable the parties to arrive at a conciliation. It also does not appear that any terms of settlement were framed for that purpose. The maintainability of claims before Permanent Lok Adalat arising out of the motor vehicle accident is however no longer resintegra in view of the Judgment dated 30.04.2012 rendered by Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/s. Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Bodya Oraon and another passed in W.P.(C) No. 1975 of 2007. It has relied upon the Judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Interglobe Aviation Limited Vs. N. Satchidanand reported in (2011) 7 SCC 463. The question relating to the procedure required to be followed by the Permanent Lok Adalat while adjudicating pre-litigation applications under Section 22(C) of the Legal Servi