S. K. PHAUJDAR, J. ( 1 ) HEARD both the parties. The petitioner had made an application under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles act for compensation for the death of her husband in a motor accident and the respondent No. 5 was the insurer who was noticed in the proceeding. Upon a chance of compromise between the parties, the matter was sent to the Lok Adalat and the parties were required to appear on 24. 10. 99 before the Lok Adalat. The petitioner was absent on that date while the representative of the insurer was present. The Lok adalat recorded an order in the following language: "claim petition is dismissed. Costs on parties. " ( 2 ) THE petitioner thereafter made an application to the Motor Accidents Claims tribunal (Second Additional District judge, Hamirpur) on 28. 10. 1999 and the tribunal recorded an order as follows:"heard the learned counsel. The case was dismissed in Lok Adalat and absence of applicant was deliberate. Therefore, application is summarily rejected. " ( 3 ) IT is unfortunate that both the courts, the Lok Adalat and the Motor Accidents claims Tribunal, had erred on the point of law. The Lok Adalat was not supposed to decide an adversary proceeding. Cognizance can be taken by the Lok Adalat under section 20 of Legal Services Authorities act, 1987, upon a reference under subsection (5) of section 19 for the purpose of determining and arriving at a compromise between the parties of a dispute and clause (5) of section 20 empowers the lok Adalat to return the records of the case to the court in case no compromise or settlement could be arrived at between the parties. The law never permitted a Lok adalat to dismiss a claim petition. The best that it could have done was to return the records to the concerned court on failure of compromise or settlement. Thus, the order of dismissal of the petition was patently wrong. ( 4 ) THE concerned Tribunal had committed the mistake by taking the dismissal order of the Lok Adalat as a final one. He should have read the order as one under section 20 (5) for return of the records to him and he should not have taken any cognizance of the dismissal order of the lok Adalat as it was non est in the eyes of law. He should have read the order as one under section 20 (5) for return of the records to him and he should not have taken any cognizance of the dismissal order of the lok Adalat as it was non est in the eyes of law. Thus the order of the Tribunal dated 28. 10. 1999 is also not a legal one. ( 5 ) BOTH the aforesaid impugned orders are quashed. The concerned Claim Case no. 76 of 1998 shall proceed before the concerned Tribunal according to law. The parties who are before me are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 5. 1. 2000 to take further orders from it. ( 6 ) WITH the aforesaid directions, the present writ petition stands allowed. A certified copy of this order may be given to the learned counsel within two working days on a proper application. Petition allowed. .