Hon’ble Suneet Kumar, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

2. The petitioner Life Insurance Corporation of India (Corporation) is assailing the order dated 28 February, 2015, passed by the second respondent, Permanent Lok Adalat, Kanpur Nagar in Complaint Case No. 41 of 2014.

3. Sri Maneesh Tandon, learned counsel has put in appearance on behalf of the first respondent.

4. Learned counsel for the parties would submit that the matter be decided finally without calling for counter-affidavit as the facts are not in dispute.

5. On the consent of the parties, the petition is being decided finally as per the Rules of the Court.

6. Wife of the first respondent was insured under policies “Jeevan Anand” and “Wealth Plus” by the Corporation. In both the policies, the first respondent was the nominee. On the death of the insured, the first respondent claimed the sum from the Corporation which was not paid, consequently, a petition was filed before the Permanent Lok Adalat (P.L.A.), which was decided by the impugned order dated 28 February, 2015, directing the Corporation to pay Rs. 7,50,000/- to the first respondent alongwith interest.

7. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in terms of Section 22 (C) of Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (1987 Act), an attempt should have been made by the PLA for settlement of the dispute interse parties. The provision being mandatory, therefore it was incumbent upon the PLA to have conducted conciliation proceeding to settle the dispute. Though, the impugned order records that despite conciliation the parties could not reach a settlement, therefore, the matter was being adjudicated, is incorrect. Whereas, the entire order sheet would show that not a single date was fixed by the PLA for settlement of dispute interse parties. Further, it is contended that PLA had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition, as the claimant had not approached the prescribed forum under the Redressal of Public Grievance Rules, 1998.

8. Confronted with the aforementioned submission, Sri Manish Tandon, learned counsel appearing for the respondent would fairly submit that the matter be remanded for the limited purpose to enable PLA to reach a settlement between the parties but would submit that the power of PLA to conciliate and on failure to adjudicate is in addition to and not in derogation of any other forum provided under any other Act or Rules.

9. Rival submissions fall for consideration.

10. The advent of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 gave a statutory status to the Lok Adalats, pursuant to the constitutional mandate in Article 39-A of the Constitution of India. Lok Adalats have been created to restore access to remedies, protections and alleviate the institutional burden of the millions of petty cases clogging the regular Courts. Thus, it cannot be doubted that Lok Adalats are serving an important public purpose. (Refer: M.P. State Legal Services Authority v. Prateek Jain, (2014) 10 SCC 690).

11. In Salem Advocate Bar Association (2) v. Union of India, (2005) 6 SCC 344, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of 1987 Act.

12. The Legal Services Authorities (Amendment) Act, 2002 (for short, ‘2002 Amendment Act’), a new Chapter VI-A titled “Pre-litigation Conciliation and Settlement” comprising of Sections 22-A to 22-E came to be inserted. The Supreme Court in Bar Council of India v. Union of India, 2012 (8) SCC 243, upheld the vires of 2002 Amendment Act. Chapter VI-A enables a party to a dispute relating to public utility service to approach the Permanent Lok Adalat (PLA) for the settlement of dispute before the dispute is brought before any Court.

13. The establishment of Permanent Lok Adalats and conferring them jurisdiction upto a specific pecuniary limit in respect of one or more public utility services as defined in Section 22-A(b) before the dispute is brought before any Court by any party to the dispute is not anathema to the