Hon’ble Attau Rahman Masoodi, J.—Vakalatnama filed by Shri Dhurv Kumar learned counsel on behalf of opposite party No. 1 is taken on record.

Heard Sri Anil Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Dhruv Kumar learned counsel who has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party No. 1.

Opposite party No. 4 is the son of the claimant(opposite party No. 1) whereas opposite party No. 5 is the married daughter of the claimant(opposite party No. 1).

2. This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has assailed the order passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat on 7.3.2018 in P.L.A. Case No. 208 of 2015 whereby the application Ka-8 filed by the petitioner under Section 22C(4) & (5) of the Legal Services Authorities Act for settlement of the claim through conciliation has been rejected on the ground that the insurer in the previous settlements made through conciliation has complied with the award by making payment of cheques to the beneficiaries through the District Magistrate rather depositing the same before the PLA.

3. Sri Anil Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner drawing attention of this Court to clause 16 of the agreement has argued that the payment of a claim settled between the beneficiaries and the insurance company is to be made through cheque/draft and it is the duty of the concerned District Magistrate to ensure that the same is delivered to the beneficiary concerned. It is for this reason that any claim even if settled through conciliation in terms of the provisions of the Act is to be implemented as per the aforesaid clause of agreement.

4. It is further pointed out that such a mechanism of making payment to the beneficiaries brings the revenue authorities within the fold of an obligation to check multiple claims that are lodged arising out of one and the same mishap.

5. Sri Dhruv Kumar, learned counsel for the claimant, on the contrary, has argued that the insurance company being in collusion with the district authorities evades the responsibility of payment by making the claimants to run from pillar to post. It is only when the claimants approach the legal forum provided under the Act that the insurance company wakes up and thereafter indulges into all sorts of objections so as to defeat the legitimate claim of the poor victims covered under the policy.

6. Insofar as the present case is concerned, the death of one late Shri Ram occurred on 22.11.2009 and the insurance scheme at the relevant time was in force.

7. It is pointed out that the insurance company, at the initial stage, repudiated the claim on 18.5.2010 on the ground that the khatauni furnished by the revenue authorities alongwith the claim was not as per the terms of the policy, hence, repudiation of the claim was communicated to the revenue authorities. Later on, a computerized copy of the khatauni was forwarded by the revenue authorities alongwith the claim on 1.8.2010 but for the reasons best known, the claimant’s grievance was not redressed timely.

8. This Court from a plain reading of clause 11 of the agreement would gather that the beneficiary/claimant is bound to lodge a claim as soon as possible with the lekhpal and in no case a claim is to be lodged later than 120 days from the date of the mishap. The duty of forwarding requisite documents shifts upon the lekhpal concerned as soon as the application is filed who is under an obligation to forward the papers so that the amount of compensation as per insurance policy is paid to the beneficiaries without any delay.

9. As per clause 16 of the agreement, it is the duty of the insurance company to release the payment within a period of thirty days from the date of receiving the claim but no such effort appears to have been made in the present case despite the computerized khatauni having been submitted with insurer company.

10. Para 18 of the agreement provides necessary guidance as to who can claim the benefit of insurance policy and in the event of any disput