The main legal point established in the judgment is that the jurisdiction of the Permanent Lok Adalat to adjudicate a matter under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is limited by the provisions of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, and the application for compensation under Section 166 was not maintainable when the dispute was already before the Claims Tribunal.

Heard Mrs. Nisha Thakur, counsel appearing for the petitioner.

2. Heard Mr. Arun Kumar, counsel appearing for the respondent no. 1.

3. Nobody appears on behalf of the other respondents.

4. This writ petition has been filed for the following relief’s :

“(a) “For quashing the Judgement/Award dated 11-06-2008 (Annexure-5) passed by Hon’ble Shri Jaleshwar Ram, the Chairman, and its Members Shri Deo Sagar Singh, and Shri Givind Ram Diwan of Permanent Lok Adalot, Gumla, in PLA case no. 64 of 2007, (arising from a M.V.A. Claim Case no. 19/2006 before the Fast Track Court-1, Gumla-)- preferred under section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988, who awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- under Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987,--- final compensation damage to be paid to the Petitioner within a month, due to death of her husband, the deceased Oskar Surin, on 18.02.2006 while he was travelling on the roof of the bus “Neelrath” bearing Registration no. JH 01C-7609, who fell down on the running road, failing which shall have to pay interest, at the rate of 12 % per annum from the day of filing; And

(b) For quashing the above order passed in PLA Case no. 64 of 2007, as the Permanent Lok Adalat has the power of ‘Conciliation’ but has ‘No adjudicatory power’ or to perform ‘Judicial functions’, being contrary to law and beyond power and jurisdiction of the Lok Adalat - as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab vs. Jalour Singh, a judgment by three judge pronounced on 18 January, 2008; And

(c) For quashing the above order as the Permanent Lok Adalat has ‘No Jurisdiction’ under chapter- VIA, Section 22C(1) ‘First Proviso’ of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, (Amendment) 2002 to adjudicate a matter relating to an offence ‘Not Compoundable’ under any law, arising out of FIR no. 09/2006 dated 25-02-2006, and also when the ‘Conciliation and Settlement’ not signed by the parties and had failed before the Permanent Lok Adalat.”

5. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the proceeding before the Permanent Lok Adalat which ultimately led to the filing of the impugned order, was itself not maintainable and she submits that the instant case can be decided on the short point as to whether after the claimant having filed a case before the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Gumla any petition before the Permanent Lok Adalat could not have been filed by the claimant in view of section 22 C (1) of Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987.

6. Counsel for the petitioner by referring to paragraph nos. 9 and 10 of the writ petition submits that the petitioner before the Permanent Lok Adalat was the wife of the deceased who under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 filed Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Case No. 19 of 2006 before the Tribunal, Gumla for a claim of Rs. 7,40,000/- and thereafter, a fresh application was filed before the Permanent Lok Adalat which was numbered as Pre-Litigation Case No. 64 of 2007 and accordingly, she submits that in view of the Section 22(C)(1) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 the petition before the Permanent Lok Adalat was not maintainable. She submits that as per the provision of Section 22(C)(1) of Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, any party to the dispute may, before the dispute is brought before any Court, make an application to the Permanent Lok Adalat for settlement of dispute. She submits that the dispute was already subject matter before the Claims Tribunal and accordingly, any application could not have been filed by the claimant before the Permanent Lok Adalat. She submits that the Permanent Lok Adalat could not have entertained the application and decided the case as it had no jurisdiction to entertain the application under the facts and circumstances of this case.

7. Counsel for the respondent no. 1, on the other hand submits that although no counter-affidavit has been filed in this case denying the statements made in paragraph nos. 9 and 10 of the writ petition, but from the perus