The main legal point established in the judgment is the jurisdiction and authority of the Permanent Lok Adalat for Public Utility Services under the Legal Services Authorities Act, and the maintainability of a writ petition against the award passed by PLAPUS.

Paramjeet Singh, J.

Instant writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned award dated 21.05.2015 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.1 - Permanent Lok Adalat for Public Utility Services, Camp Court at Palwal (hereinafter referred to as 'PLAPUS'), whereby petitioners have been directed to pay Rs. 50,000/- to respondent No.2 within 45 days from the passing of the award, failing which respondent No.2 has been held entitled to recover the said amount from the petitioners with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realisation of the whole amount.

2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the present writ petition in nutshell are that respondent No.2 moved an application before the PLAPUS under Section 22C(1) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') pleading that he had purchased life insurance policy bearing No.121759098 from the petitioners. He had been paying the premium of the policy regularly after purchase of the policy. During continuation of the said policy, he had suffered head injury on 20.04.2005. As a result of which he lost the vision of both of his eyes. Respondent No.2 lodged claim with the petitioners for indemnifying him under the policy but petitioners did not compensate him. Petitioners filed reply to the application admitting the factum of aforesaid life insurance policy for assured sum of Rs. 50,000/-. It was further admitted that wife of respondent No.2 had lodged claim with the petitioners for the disability suffered by respondent No.2 but due to some discrepancy in the information the claim could not be processed.

3. Efforts were made by the PLAPUS to settle the dispute amicably between the parties but to no avail. PLAPUS after hearing the parties and going through the evidence on record passed the impugned award as aforesaid. Hence, this writ petition.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that PLAPUS has no jurisdiction to decide the cases unless parties are agreeing for settlement of dispute by negotiation, conciliation, settlement or mediation. The procedure adopted by PLAPUS is illegal, arbitrary and bad in law and is not binding on the petitioners. The PLAPUS has no power, jurisdiction and authority to decide the dispute between the parties under sub-section (8) of Section 22C of the Act. The application of respondent No.2 was wrongly entertained by PLAPUS.

6. I have given my anxious and thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioners.

7. In the light of the arguments addressed by learned counsel for the petitioner, following questions arise for consideration in this writ petition: -

"1. Whether PLAPUS has been set up for providing compulsory pre-litigation mechanism for settlement of cases relating to public utility services?

2. Whether PLAPUS has power, jurisdiction and authority to decide a dispute between the parties on merit under sub-section (8) of Section 22C of the Act, although parties fail to reach such settlement, negotiation under sub-section (7) of Section 22C of the Act?

3. Whether writ petition is maintainable against the award passed by PLAPUS?"

8. Before I ponder upon the questions formulated above, it would be necessary to have a bird's eye view of the concept of Lok Adalat and Permanent Lok Adalat and their establishment and functioning etc.

9. The concept of Lok Adalat (People's Court) is ancient innovative Indian contribution towards "jurisprudence". The word "Lok" stands for people and "Adalat" stands for Court. India has a long tradition and history of settling the disputes in the society at grassroot level. Disputes settling process was known as "Panchayat". The justice in Panchayat was dispensed summarily without too much emphasis on legal technicalities. A