The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Permanent Lok Adalat has the jurisdiction to decide cases on merit under Section 22 C(8) of the Legal Services Authorities Act 1987, and the insurance company is entitled to the right to recovery from the owner of the vehicle.

1. Heard Mr. D.C. Ghosh, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

2. Heard Mr. Prabhat Kumar Sinha, counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 6 and 7.

3. Heard Mr. Vishal Kumar Trivedi, counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 5.

4. The petitioner is an insurance company. The respondent nos. 1 to 5 are the claimants and respondent no. 6 and 7 are the owner and driver of the Bus bearing registration no. BR-13 B-0189 respectively.

5. This writ petition has been filed by the writ petitioner challenging the order dated 23.11.2009 passed in P.L.A.(M.A.C.T.) Case No. 68 of 2007 by the learned Permanent Lok Adalat, Giridih.

6. Counsel for the petitioner submits as under:-

(a). The impugned order has been passed in total disregard of the provisions of Section 22 C(8) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1984 and accordingly the impugned order is perverse.

(b). Further on the merits of the case, the counsel has submitted that the insurance company is entitled for the right to recovery under the facts and circumstances of this case in view of the full bench judgment passed by this court reported in 2005 (3) JLJR 24 (Jhr).

(c). Counsel for the petitioner has referred to the judgment passed by this court in L.P.A. No. 53 of 2013 and in L.P.A. No. 52 of 2013 and has referred to paragraph no. 8 of the said judgment wherein following issues were framed for determination.

(i) Whether the Permanent Lok Adalat had the jurisdiction to decide the matter on merit by going into the disputed question of fact;

(ii) Whether the writ petition is maintainable as against the award passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat; and

(iii) Whether there was suppression of material facts by the Life Assured relating to his health as alleged by the appellant.

(d). Counsel for the petitioner has also referred to paragraph no. 18 of the said judgment which deals with the maintainability of the writ application as against the award passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat and submitted that it has been held that although the award passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat is final and cannot be questioned in any suit, application or execution proceeding, but the same cannot be taken away the power of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and any party cannot be left remediless where there are sufficient grounds to set aside the award or to interfere with the award.

(e). Counsel for the petitioner by referring to the judgment passed by the full bench of this Hon’ble Court reported in 2005 (3) JLJR 24 (Jhr), has submitted that although the Permanent Lok Adalat has taken care regarding the liability of the insurance company on the basis of the aforesaid full Bench judgment, but has totally ignored the right to recovery which has been upheld in the very same judgment.

(f). Counsel for the petitioner submits that specific finding has been recorded in the impugned award passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat that the deceased was travelling on the roof top of the vehicle and he submits that the same is against the policy itself. He further submits that although the liability of the owner of the vehicle has been fixed by the impugned award, but since the vehicle is insured, the insurance company has been directed to pay to the claimant, but the right to recovery has not been considered and accordingly not granted to the petitioner insurance company.

(g). Counsel submits that on this account, the impugned order is perverse and instant case is fully covered by the aforesaid full Bench judgment, as admittedly the deceased was travelling on the roof top, therefore the right to recovery ought to have been considered and granted to the insurance company and that having not been done, he submits that the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is required to be exercised.

7. Counsel for the claimants i.e respondent no. 1 to 5 on the other hand submits as under:-

(a) The amount which has been awarded has not yet been paid to him on accoun