IMPORTANT POINT
Power conferred on Permanent Lok Adalat under Section 22C(8) to adjudicate dispute between parties cannot be said to be unconstitutional and irrational.

Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.—Heard Mr. G.C. Jha, counsel appearing for the petitioner.

2. Heard Mr.Prabhat Kumar, counsel appearing for the respondent no.1.

3. No-one appears on behalf of Respondent No.2.

4. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for quashing of the order passed in P.L.A. Case No.13 of 2004 as contained in Annexure-7 series passed by Permanent Lok Adalat, Hazaribagh in exercise of its powers under Section 22(C) of Chapter VI-A dealing with pre-litigation Conciliation and Settlement under the provisions of Legal Services Authority Act, 1987.

5. The counsel for the petitioner submits as follows:-

(a) A case was filed by the respondent no.1 before the Permanent Lok Adalat, Hazaribagh under Section 22(C) of Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 against the petitioner claiming compensation amounting to Rs.2,93,141/- with interest @ 18% per annum for damages of Tata-407 Mini Truck bearing Registration No.BR 13D 4945 registered at Hazaribagh and insured with petitioner/Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Jamshedpur Branch which met with an accident near Ghatshila on 20.05.2003.

(b) The Permanent Lok Adalat issued notice and upon receipt of notice the petitioner filed a detailed written statement and also petition wherein the petitioner made various allegations against the respondent no.1 including production of forged and fabricated bills which as claimed by the petitioner was based on some investigation said to have been conducted by one investigator namely Mr. A.K. Srivastava.

(c) The petitioner submits that the petitioner deputed spot surveyor who investigated the spot on 21.5.2003 (on the next date of accident) and submitted his report on 28.5.2003 and thereafter Mr. K.K. Sharma was appointed as final surveyor who submitted his report on 15.7.2003 and as per the final survey report the petitioner paid the claim of Rs. 11,270/- vide cheque no. 243418 dated 31.3.2004 in favour of M/s Tata Motors ltd. account Mr. Bijay Kumar (respondent no.1) as the vehicle was hypothecated with Tata Motors ltd. A copy of the spot survey report and final survey reports have been annexed as annexure-4 and 5 to the writ petition.

(d) It has been recorded at para-13 of the impugned order that talk of conciliation continued for a long time but ultimately when the matter could not be settled by conciliation the Permanent Lok Adalat decided the dispute on merits.

(e) Permanent Lok Adalat vide impugned order dated 24.02.2006 awarded the amount of Rs.44,950/- to the respondent no.1 herein payable by the petitioner- Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Hazaribagh by the end of March, 2006, failing which it is mentioned that the interest @ 6% per annum is to be paid by the petitioner.

(f) It is further submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the Permanent Lok Adalat has got no jurisdiction to adjudicate any dispute and if the conciliation fails, then the only recourse which the Permanent Lok Adalat has, is to leave the matter for adjudication through the competent court of civil jurisdiction. On this point the counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2008) 2 SCC 660.

(g) The other point of argument which has been advanced by the counsel for the petitioner is that the survey report, as contained in Annexure-5 series at page 28 of the writ petition, is an important piece of evidence which could not have been ignored by the Permanent Lok Adalat while adjudicating that dispute. He has relied upon the judgment reported in (2000) 10 SCC 19.

6. Counsel for the respondent on the other hand submits that so far as the jurisdiction by the Permanent Lok Adalat is concerned, the issue has been settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment reported in (2012) 8 SCC 243, wherein it has been clearly held that in case conciliation proceeding fails, the L