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

2. Despite steps taken on three occasions to effect service of notice upon respondent no. 3-owner of the Vehicle in question, the same could not be effected. On 16.02.2017 learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court that in an analogous matter in WP (C) No. 3032 of 2010 which arose from the same impugned order dated 06.03.2010 in Permanent Lok Adalat Case Nos. 905/2007 also, despite substituted service taken in terms of Order V Rule 20 of Civil Procedure Code, respondent no. 3 being the owner of the vehicle in question failed to appear. Having taken note of the significant facts arising out of two Permanent Lok Adalat Case Nos. 903 of 2007 and 905 of 2007 through the same impugned order, it was observed that no further steps is required to be taken for service of notice on the said respondent. Thereafter, the matter has been taken up today.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits at the outset that the award dated 06.03.2010 (Annexure-2) impugned herein suffers from the same legal infirmity, which has been considered in W.P. (C) No. 3032 of 2010 vide judgment dated 15.09.2016 passed by this Court in respect of Permanent Lok Adalat Case No. 905 of 2007 analogous to the present Permanent Lok Adalat Case No. 903 of 2007. It is submitted that this Court has been pleased to quash the impugned award giving liberty to the respondent-claimants to move before the Competent Tribunal for adjudication of the dispute, which may decide such claim, if permissible in law. It is submitted that the instant matter can also be disposed of in the light of the said judgment.

4. Accident involved in the present matter is related to the same two vehicle bearing registration no. JH 01M 6531 (Maruti Alto Car) and BR 14C 8108 (Truck) causing the death of one Mitali Bannerjee and Ujay Kumar Chakravarty. W. P. (C) No. 3032 of 2010 arose from the accident claim made in respect of death of Ujay Kumar Chakravarty whereas the present case arises out of accident claim of Mitali Bannerjee raised by her parents i.e. respondent nos. 1 and 2 herein. Therefore, the principles, which governed the decision dated 15.09.2016 should abide in the present case also.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent-Oriental Insurance Company does not dispute the aforesaid facts and the legal submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

6. Having regard to the identity of facts in both the matter, which arose out of the same accident leading to the death of occupants of Maruti Alto Car (JH 01M 6531), the present case is also being decided in light of the judgment rendered in W. P. (C) No. 3032 of 2010. Relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are quoted herein under for better appreciation:-

“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 u