The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Permanent Lok Adalat should act as a conciliator and not an adjudicator, and it should obtain written consent from both parties before deciding the dispute on merits, as required by the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987.

JUDGMENT :

D.N. Patel, J.

The present writ petition has been preferred against the detailed reasoned order, passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Jamshedpur dated 1st November, 2008 in Permanent Lok Adalat Case No. 458 of 2007 (Annexure-3 to the memo of the present petition).

2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has never given consent for inviting decision on merits from the Permanent Lok Adalat, on the contrary, there is clear denial to conciliate the case before the Permanent Lok Adalat, Jamshedpur. The respondent has raised a claim for damages arising out of motor vehicle accident. The claim is of Rs. 4,54,049/ - plus interest at the rate of 12% to the damages caused to the vehicle and the Permanent Lok Adalat, Jamshedpur without any power, jurisdiction and authority decided the issue on merits like civil court and allowed the claim of Rs. 2,83,802/ - as damages. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following reported decisions:

(a) 2009 (4) JLJR 412 : 2009 (3) JCR 494 (Jhr.)

(b) 2008 (3) JLJR. 513 : 2008 (4 JCR) 12 (Jhr.)

(c) AIR 1995 SC 1384

and has submitted that unless the consent is given in writing, the Permanent Lok Adalat has no power, jurisdiction and authority to decide the issue on merits. Looking to paragraph No. 4 of the impugned order, the petitioner has denied the conciliation before the Permanent Lok Adalat, Jamshedpur. There is clear breach of Sub Section (7) of Section 22C of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (in short 'the Act, 1987'). Moreover, there is breach of Sub Section (8) of Section 22C of the Act, 1987 and therefore also, the impugned order at Annexure-3 dated 1st November, 2008 deserves to be quashed and set aside.

3. I have heard learned Counsel for the respondent, who has submitted that the order passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat. Jamshedpur is absolutely in consonance with the facts and law. The amount of the damages awarded by the Permanent Lok Adalat Jamshedpur cannot be said to be unreasonable, inaccessible, looking to the damages caused to the vehicle in motor vehicle accident. On the basis of the evidences on record, the claim allowed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Jamshedpur at Rs. 2,83,802/ - is in consonance with the evidences and hence, this writ petition deserves to be dismissed. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent that looking to Sub Section (8) of Section 22C of the Act, 1987, the Permanent Lok Adalat, Jamshedpur has all power, jurisdiction and authority to decide the case on merits and therefore also, tills petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. Having heard learned Counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the impugned order, I hereby, quash and set aside the order, passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Jamshedpur, dated 1st November, 2008 in Permanent Lok Adalat Case No. 458 of 2007, Annexure-3 to the memo of the present petition, for the following facts and reasons:

(i) It appears that the respondent is applicant before the Permanent Lok Adalat, Jamshedpur, who has instituted Permanent Lok Adalat Case No. 458 of 2007 for claiming damages caused to the vehicle in motor vehicle accident. The claim of damages caused to the vehicle was for Rs. 4,54,049/ - plus interest at the rate of 12 % per annum.

(ii) It appears that the Permanent Lok Adalat, Jamshedpur has allowed the claim to the tune of Rs. 2,83,802/ - by the impugned order without appreciating the fact that the present petitioner has never given any consent for Inviting the decision on merits under Sub Section (8) of Section 22C of the Legal Services Authorities Act. 1987.

(iii) It has been held by this Court in the case of National Insurance Company v. Kartik Gorain and Ors. as reported in 2009 (4) JLJR 412, especially in paragraph 4, which reads as under:

“4. It has been held in the aforesaid decisions that it is a duty vested in the Permanent Lok Adalats that by using their wisdom, knowledge and experi