Hon’ble Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J.—Heard Sri Subhash Chandra Srivastava, for the petitioners and Sri Ashish Kumar Gupta, for respondent-1.

2. The writ petition has been filed against the award of Permanent Lok Adalat, dated 15.6.2016, passed in P.L.A. Case No. 69 of 2014, directing for payment of Rs. 242013/- alongwith simple interest at the rate of 7% per annum and costs of Rs. 200/- to respondent-1 by way of reimbursement.

3. M/s. Siddharth Associate through its proprietor Smt. Anita Bajpayee (respondent-1) filed an application (registered as P.L.A. Case No. 69 of 2014) for compensation of Rs. 242013/- alongwith costs. It has been stated that respondent-1 was owner of Highba Dumper U.P.-27 T-5421, which was insured with the appellant. On 9.9.2013, when the driver of aforesaid dumber was unloading ply S at Azizganj turn, in between showroom of JCB and Tata Company, Bareilly, its body was detached from chassis and was damaged. The claimant informed the petitioner about this accident. On which the petitioner sent its official surveyor and obtained a survey report and sent the vehicle for repair to authorized service center of the company i.e. Visheshwar Motors, Bareilly on 10.9.2014. In repair, Visheshwar Motors, Bareilly charged Rs. 242013/- of which he has given him bill, boucher and receipt. The claimant informed the petitioner on 26.11.2013, to get fresh survey report of the vehicle after repair. The claimant alongwith relevant documents submitted its claim to the petitioner for reimbursement, however the petitioner sanctioned only Rs. 26590/-, which was not accepted by her. The petitioner filed applications dated 6.6.2014 and 10.6.2014 to sanction for the entire amount incurred in repair of the vehicle but it was not accepted. On these allegations claim petition was filed.

4. The petitioner filed its written statement and contested the matter. The petitioner stated that amount of the claim on the basis of invoice report given by Visheshwar Service Center, Bareilly was a collusive report. The surveyor of the petitioner has assessed actual damage to the vehicle to the tune of Rs. 26590/- which was offered to the claimant. In the absence of any consent by the petitioner, Permanent Lok Adalat had no jurisdiction to decide the case on merit.

5. Permanent Lok Adalat, in the impugned order, has noticed that after formulation of points on the basis of pleading of the parties, effort for compromise was made between the parties on 12.12.2014, 1.4.2015, 6.1.2016 and 25.5.2016 but it could not succeed. Both the parties adduced oral and documentary evidence in support of their case. Permanent Lok Adalat found that damages of the vehicle due to accident, has not been denied. There is no reason to disbelieve the bill and boucher issued by Visheshwar Service Center, Bareilly in respect of repair of the vehicle. On these findings, the claim petition was decreed and the petitioner was directed to pay Rs. 242013/- alongwith simple interest at the rate of 7% per annum and costs of Rs. 200/- to respondent-1. Hence this writ petition has been filed.

6. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has never given consent to adjudicate the dispute on merit. On the other hand, the petitioner made a declaration that loss caused to the vehicle of the claimant has already been assessed and offered and there was no deficiency of service on behalf of the petitioner. The excess claim made of respondent-1 was not legally payable, which also implies that the petitioner never gave consent to Permanent Lok Adalat to adjudicate the dispute as such it has no jurisdiction to pass the award on merit. He relied upon judgment of Jharkhand High Court in Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Urmila Devi, AIR 2010 Jharkhand 133, in which it has been held that for exercising jurisdiction of Permanent Lok Adalat for deciding the dispute, two essential conditions must be fulfilled i.e. (i) the parties should give consent that their