S. Chandrashekhar, J. - (1.) AGGRIEVED by order dated 04.03.2009/award dated 13.03.2009 in PLA Comp. (Claim) Case No. 161 of 2008, the present writ petition has been filed. The brief facts of the case are that, the respondent No. 1 is the mother of the deceased namely, Md. Faiyaz who died in a motor vehicle accident on 10.07.2007. The vehicle involved in the accident was tracker No. JH18A -0784 owned by one Kishor Kumar Paswan and the said vehicle was insured with National Insurance Company Limited. The age of the son of the respondent No. 1 was about 8 years, who was a student of Urdu Middle School, Kodarjanna. A first Information Report being Muffassil P.S. Case No. 0116 dated 10.07.2007 under Sections 279, 304(A), IPC was registered and postmortem examination of the dead body was conducted on 10.07.2007 at Sahebganj Hospital. The respondent No. 1 on account of the death of her son namely, Md. Faiyaz, filed application under Section 22(C) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. The petitioner -National Insurance Company Limited in spite of notice issued by the PLA Court did not appear in the proceeding of PLA Comp. (Claim) Case No. 161 of 2008 and therefore, the case proceeded ex parte against it.
(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submits that PLA Court has no power, jurisdiction and authority to decide a dispute between the parties on merits, without written consent of the parties. It is further submitted that during the proceeding of PLA Comp. (Claim) Case No. 161 of 2008, no notice was issued to the petitioner. As against the above, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 8 submits that in view of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Bar Council of India v. Union of India", reported in : (2012) 8 SCC 243 : AIR 2012 SC 3246), it is no longer in dispute that the PLA Court has requisite power and jurisdiction to decide the case on merits.
(3.) IN "Bar Council of India" case ( : AIR 2012 SC 3246), the Hon'ble Supreme Court after analysing the provisions of the Legal Services Authorities Act, has held thus, 27. "Can the power conferred on Permanent Lok Adalats to adjudicate the disputes between the parties concerning public utility service up to a specific pecuniary limit, if they do not relate to any offence, as provided under Section 22C(8), be said to be unconstitutional and irrational? We think not. It is settled law that an authority empowered to adjudicate the disputes between the parties and act as a tribunal may not necessarily have all the trappings of the court. What is essential is that it must be a creature of statute and should adjudicate the dispute between the parties before it after giving reasonable opportunity to them consistent with the principles of fair play and natural justice. It is not a constitutional right of any person to have the dispute adjudicated by means of a court only. Chapter VIA has been enacted to provide for an institutional mechanism, through the establishment of Permanent Lok Adalats for settlement of disputes concerning public utility service before the matter is brought to the court and in the event of failure to reach any settlement, empowering the Permanent Lok Adalat to adjudicate such dispute if it does not relate to any offence.";