Permanent Lok Adalat has jurisdiction to adjudicate compensation claims under the Motor Vehicles Act after conciliation efforts fail, affirming its authority and established processes.

JUDGMENT :

Rajesh Shankar, J.

The present writ petition has been filed for quashing/setting aside the order dated 09.01.2008 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Jamshedpur (hereinafter referred to as “the PLA”) in P.L.A. Case No. 90/2007 in exercise of its power conferred under Section 22 (C) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1987), whereby the petitioner was directed to pay the awarded amount of compensation of Rs.2,63,000/- to the claimant i.e., the respondent no. 1 within one month from the said order, failing which she was made entitled to recover and realize the compensation amount through the process of law with interest at the rate of 12% per annum on account of death of her husband namely, Kuna Singh Sardar in motor vehicle accident.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent no. 1 had filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 for herself and on behalf of her two minor children i.e., the respondent nos. 2 and 3 before the P.L.A, Jamshedpur constituted under Section 22 (B) of the Act 1987 claiming compensation of Rs.3,20,000/- along with interest on account of death of her husband namely, Kuna Singh Sardar in motor vehicle accident which was said to have been taken place on 05.08.2006 caused by a truck bearing registration No. HR-38J-6871 near Village Khunti, Chandil, District Seraikella-Kharsawan. Thereafter, a case was registered as P.L.A Case No. 90 of 2007. The petitioner filed the written statement challenging the maintainability of the said case stating that the P.L.A. had no jurisdiction to entertain the cases related to Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 as the Motor Accident Claims Tribunals were separately constituted for the said purpose.

3. It is further submitted that after receipt of the notice from the P.L.A, the petitioner deputed Mr. Arun Kumar Tiwary, Advocate as Investigator who reported the petitioner vide his report dated 19.07.2007 that altogether four cases were filed by the claimant(s) at different courts for grant of compensation on account of death of Late Kuna Singh Sardar who had died in the motor vehicle accident occurred on 05.08.2006 and thus it was clear that the claimant(s) had not come to the court with clean hands.

4. It is also submitted that the claimants had suppressed the material fact that they had already filed compensation cases before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunals (M.A.C.T), Seraikella and Jamshedpur vide Compensation Case Nos. 1/2007 and 155/2006 respectively which were dismissed on 01.06.2007 and 07.07.2007 respectively. Hence, on this score alone, the claim application being P.L.A No. 90 of 2007 filed by the claimant(s) was fit to be dismissed.

5. It is further submitted that the P.L.A in its order dated 09.01.2008 completely ignored and did not even discuss the points raised by the petitioner in the written statement. It is also submitted that the P.L.A constituted under the Act, 1987 had no jurisdiction to decide the issue which was required to be adjudicated on the basis of reasoning and evidence led by the parties.

6. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 submits that P.L.A Case Nos. 90 of 2007 and 92 of 2007 were filed by the claimants under Section 166 and Section 140 of the Act, 1988 respectively. P.L.A Case No. 92 of the 2007 was allowed by the P.L.A awarding compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the claimant(s) which was also paid by the petitioner. Moreover, Compensation Case No. 1 of 2007 filed by the cla