1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 06.09.2006 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Ranchi (hereinafter referred as PLA) in P.L.A Case No. 151 and 152 of 2005, whereby applications filed under Section 22C of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act, 1987”) read with Sections 140 and 166 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1988”) were allowed directing the petitioner to pay compensation of Rs. 2,68,000/along with interest @ 9% to the respondent no. 1 from the date of filing of the application till the actual date of payment.

3. The factual background of the case is that one Bodya Oraon (respondent no. 1 herein) filed applications under Section 22C of the Act, 1987 r/w Sections 140 and 166 of the Act of 1988 before PLA, Ranchi being P.L.A Case Nos. 151 of 2005 and 152 of 2005. In the said claim petitions, the respondent no. 1 claimed that on 23.12.2004, her mother Modail Orain was travelling on the truck bearing registration no. BR42G7347 and was going to the house from Lohardaga and while on the way, the truck got imbalanced and dashed one Armada Jeep resulting into death of Modail Orain. The petitioner appeared in that case and filed written statement raising maintainability of the applications before the Permanent Lok Adalat. However, the PLA framed the issues, took evidence and finally decided the cases on merit directing the petitioner to pay compensation of Rs.2,68,000/with interest @ 9% from the date of filing of the applications in favour of the respondent no. 1 on account of death of Modail Orain, but the petitioner was held entitled to recover the said amount from the owner of the Truck (respondent no. 2 herein). It is further held that the dispute relates to transport of passengers by road as well as motor vehicle insurance which is a public utility service as defined under Section 22C of the Act of 1987.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has questioned the jurisdiction of the PLA to entertain claim under Sections 140 and 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 as the Accident Claims Tribunal has been established under Section 165 of the Act, 1988 which has been especially conferred with the jurisdiction to decide an application under Sections 140 and 166 of the Act, 1988 and not before any other authority. It is further submitted that the impugned order is wholly without jurisdiction as the Lok Adalat constituted under the Act, 1987 is not vested with the authority to decide contentious issue unless there is consent of the parties to the dispute. The PLA has no jurisdiction to decide a claim on merit and under Section 22C of the Act, 1987, the PLA has been empowered to entertain only the claim of prelitigation conciliation and settlement. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the following judgments of this court:

(i) National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Niwas Chandra Chakravarty (W.P.C No. 3032 of 2010),

(ii) National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Tulsi Bannerjee & Ors. (W.P.C No. 3042 of 2010).

5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the PLA is well within the jurisdiction to entertain an application under Sections 140 and 166 of the Act, 1988 and also to decide the claim on merit. The learned counsel further submits that Section 22C (7) of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 is not a mandatory provision, rather it is directory in nature, which would be apparent from the language of Section 22C (7) of the Act, 1987. It is further submitted that the petitioner has not made any specific statement in the writ petition that the procedure required to be followed by the PLA in terms with Section 22C (4) to (7) of the Act, 1987, has not been followed. It is further submitted that the provisions of Section 22C of the Act, 1987 does not mandate the requirement of written consent by the parties to the dispute. The le