Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. - (1.) HEARD counsel for the petitioner. Though the claimant -respondent no. 1 had entered appearance after the notice but the respondent no. 2 has chosen not to appear in spite of notice. Today no one appears on the behalf of the respondent no. 1 to oppose the prayer made in the writ petition.
(2.) THE award of the Permanent Lok Adalat dated 18.1.2008 passed in P.L.A. Case No. 239 of 2007 is under challenge by the petitioner -Insurance Company whereby a sum of Rs. 1,18,000/ - has been awarded as compensation to the respondent no. 1 to be paid within one month. A pre -litigation case was instituted on the application of the respondent no. 1 seeking payment of compensation to the tune of Rs. 6,00,000/ - on account of injuries sustained by him in a road accident on 1.7.2006, when the auto -rickshaw, he was traveling in, bearing registration no. JH -05M -1194 dashed a stationery truck. The injuries led to his disablement up to the extent of 40%. On notice, the insurance company appeared before the Permanent Lok Adalat and contested the claim by filing a written show cause, which is contained in Annexure 1 to the writ petition. A categorical plea was taken that the driver of the tempo bearing no. JH -05M -1194 was not authorized to drive the public vehicle at the time of alleged occurrence and hence the opposite party/Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.
(3.) IT is the contention of the petitioner that the Permanent Lok Adalat did not take any step for framing of terms of settlement and offer it to the rival parties to arrive at a compromise but proceeded to decide the dispute on merit. It failed to follow the procedure laid down under Section 22C(4) to (7) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 and jumped straight way to the provision of Section 22C(8) to decide the dispute on merit, which is not permissible in law in view of the judgment rendered by a learned Singh Judge of this Court in the case of State Bank of India, Dhanbad Vs. State of Jharkhand & another, reported in : 2009 (3) JCR 374 (Jhr.) and also a Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of M/s. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Kutchery Road, Ranchi Vs. Bodya Oraon & another passed in W.P. (C) No. 1975 of 2007 dated 30.4.2012. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Permanent Lok Adalat has only observed that the contesting opposite party -Insurance Company denied to conciliate the matter on the ground that the driving license of the driver of the auto -rickshaw was not effective on the alleged date of accident but did not follow the mandate of the Act of 1987 as indicated herein above and interpreted by the judgments of this Court referred to above. It is submitted that in such circumstances the impugned award suffers from serious error of law and the Permanent Lok Adalat having acted beyond jurisdiction, therefore, it is required to be interfered with in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.;