Judgment The petitioners who are the Insurance Companies, in all these writ petitions are challenging the jurisdiction of the Permanent Lok Adalats to entertain and adjudicate the claim petitions under the Motor Vehicles Act, against them by the “third parties’, i.e., a person who is not a party to the Contract of Insurance. 2. For a proper appreciation of the legal issues involved in the case, the factual background is of utmost importance. Therefore, the facts in one of these petitions is set down as hereunder; The petitioner in Writ Petition No.12548 of 2008 is the insurer carrying on business as contemplated under the Insurance Act, 1938. Respondents 1 to 5 instituted a claim petition before the Permanent Lok Adalat, Mysore, alleging that they are the wife, children and mother of one Rajaiah @ Raju. That, on 4.3.2008 at about 5.45 PM the said Rajaiah @ Raju was proceeding on his bicycle on Hunsur-Periyapatna main road. The driver of the vehicle bearing No. KA-01/MC-4996 drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the bicycle which resulted in injuries to Rajaiah @ Raju and he succumbed to the injuries. A sum of Rs.9,45,000/- was claimed as compensation. The Permanent Lok Adalat, Mysore, registered the case as PLA No. 54/2008 and caused a notice on the petitioner to appear before it to answer the said claim. The petitioner filed an application under Section 22B, C and D of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 for rejection of the claim petition as not maintainable before the Permanent Lok Adalat. The said request was rejected. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner is before this Court seeking quashing of the order dated 30.7.2008 over-ruling the objections of the petitioner. 3. The petitioner contends that, the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (hereinafter for short referred to as ‘the Act’) was enacted to constitute Legal Services Authorities to provide for free and competent legal services to the weaker section of the society and to ensure that opportunities for securing justice are not denied to any citizen by reason of economic or other disabilities and to organize Lok Adalats to secure the operation of the legal system that promotes justice on a basis of equal opportunity. Chapter CI-A was inserted by Act 32/2002 w.e.f. 11.6.2002 for pre-litigation conciliation and settlement. Chapter CI-A was inserted by Act 32/2002 w.e.f. 11.6.2002 for pre-litigation conciliation and settlement. The said Chapter is not applicable to the claims under the provisions of M.V. Act, as the award passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat is final. The Permanent Lok Adalat by passing the impugned order has assumed jurisdiction. It has proceeded on the assumption that the policy of insurance procured by the owner of a motor vehicle and the service also would include a claim made by the beneficiary under a policy of insurance procured by the insured. The Permanent Lok Adalat proceeds to hold that the Apex Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd., vs Ajay Sinha & another, reported in CDJ 2008 SC 996 has not laid down any ration decidendi. Therefore, the petitioner has preferred this Writ Petition challenging the impugned order. After service of notice, the respondents entered appearance. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that, though insurance service is included in public utility services, the Permanent Lok Adalat can take cognizance of cases by any party to a dispute thereby meaning party to the insurance contract. A person who is not a party to such insurance contract cannot maintain a dispute before the Permanent Lok Adalat under Section 22 of the Act. Conversely, the Permanent Lok Adalat has no jurisdiction to entertain a dispute at the instance of a party who is not a party to the contract. Therefore, they submit that the motor accident claims are outside the purview of the Permanent Lok Adalat as a claim under Section 165 of the MV Act arises upon the claim for compensation in respect of accidents involving the death of or bodily injury to persons arising out of the usage of motor vehicles or damages to any property of a third party so arisen or death. Secondly it was contended that, when a comprehensive machinery is provided under the Motor Vehicles Act to entertain and adjudicate the claims of third parties, the jurisdiction of Permanent Lok Adalat to entertain and adjudicate such claims is impliedly barred. Secondly it was contended that, when a comprehensive machinery is provided under the Motor Vehicles Act to entertain and adjudicate the claims of third parties, the jurisdiction of Permanent Lok Adalat to entertain and adjudicate such claims is impliedly barred. As is clear from the language employed in Section 22(c), the award to be passed by a Permanent Lok Adalat shall be final whereas awards passed by the Claims Tribunal are appealable and thus it was not in the contemplation of the Parliament when it enacted Section 22-C of the Act to confer jurisdiction of the Permanent Lok Adalat to entertain claims under Section 165 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The main crux of Section 22-C is conciliation. Only in the event, the conciliation fails, it has been conferred the role of adjudicator. More over, the object of constituting Permanent Lok Adalat is to have pre-litigation stage and most of the petty cases, which ought not to go to the regular Courts could be settled at the pre-litigation stage itself. Therefore the said provision do not confer power on the Permanent Lok Adalat to entertain the claim petition. 5. Per contra, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the very object of the said amendment is to provide a remedy in t5he forum where the party has approached for pre-litigation resolution of dispute and if the said resolution fails, the parties are not made to approach the regular Courts for adjudication of their claims. When once the Parliament has defined the word ‘public utility services’, having regard to the object with which the main Act is enacted as well as the amendment, the Courts should give wider and liberal interpretation so as to confer the jurisdiction on Permanent Lok Adalat to decide the said disputes. The words ‘any party to a dispute’ cannot be construed as to include only the parties to the contract. The word used is ‘any party to dispute’ and not ‘to contract’. Therefore, any party to a dispute can put forth a claim if his claim is not decided on the ground that the insurance service is not extended to him. The Permanent Lok Adalat gets jurisdiction to decide the same. 6. The word used is ‘any party to dispute’ and not ‘to contract’. Therefore, any party to a dispute can put forth a claim if his claim is not decided on the ground that the insurance service is not extended to him. The Permanent Lok Adalat gets jurisdiction to decide the same. 6. Therefore the point that arise for consideration is:- Whether the Permanent Lok Adalat has jurisdiction to entertain a claim under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, by a person who is not a party to the Contract of Insurance, under Section 22-C of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. 7. In order to answer this question, it is necessary to know the meaning of the word Lok Adalat, its origin, and growth in our country and the provisions contained in the Act. 8. Lok Adalat is a Hindi word. It means “People’s Court”, - Lok Adalats were being constituted at various places in the country for the disposal of a large number of case expeditiously and with lesser costs in a summary way and through the process of arbitration and settlement between the parties. It was functioning as a voluntary and conciliatory agency without any statutory backing for its decisions. It was proved to be popular in providing for a speedier system of administration of justice. In view of its growing popularity, there was a demand for providing a statutory backing to this institution and the awards given by Lok Adalats. It was felt that such a statutory support would not only reduce the burden of arrears of work in regular courts, but would also take justice to the doorsteps of the poor and the needy and make justice quicker and less expensive. 9. Article 39-A of the Constitution provides that the State shall secure the operation of the legal system which promotes justice, on a basis of equal opportunity, and shall, in particular, provide free legal aid, by suitable legislation or schemes or in any other way, to ensure that opportunities for securing justice are not denied to any citizen by reason of economic or other disabilities. The Parliament, to constitute legal services authorities, to provide free and competent legal services to the weaker sections of the society, to ensure that opportunity for securing justice are not denied to any citizen by reason of economic or other disabilities, and to organize Lok Adalats to secure that the operation of the legal system promotes justice on a basis of equal opportunity enacted the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. 10. The word ‘Lok Adalats’ is defined under the Act at Section 2(d). “2(d). Lok Adalat means Lok-Adalat organized under chapter VI.” 11. Chapter VI of the Act deals with Lok Adalats. Sub-section (1) to sub-section (4) of Section 19 deals with organization of Lok Adalats, the constitution of Lok Adalats, the experience and qualification of persons constituting the Lok Adalats. The Lok Adalat has jurisdiction to determine and to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties to a dispute in respect of two types of cases: (1) In cases pending before any Court for which the Lok Adalat is authorized. (2) Any mater which is falling within the jurisdiction and is not brought before any Court. 12. Therefore, the second type of cases are nothing but pre-litigation cases, i.e. disputes which are yet to reach the Court. However, the Lok Adalats shall have no jurisdiction in respect of any case or matter relating to an offence not compoundable under any law. Broadly speaking these Lok Adalats have been conferred jurisdiction to resolve any matter which is already pending in the Court or which may be brought before the Court except cases or matters relating to an offence not compoundable under any law. 13. In so far as first category of cases are concerned, Section 20 of the Act deals with cognizance of cases by Lok Adalats. In so far as cases which are already pending in Court, if the parties thereof agree or one of the party makers an application to the Court requesting for reference to the Lok Adalats or even in the absence of any such application, if the Court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance by the Lok Adalats, the Court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat./ However, before making such reference, the parties have to be heard. Once such matters are referred to Lok Adalats, the Lok Adalats get jurisdiction to proceed to dispose of the case and arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties. If no award is made by the Lok Adalat on the ground that no compromise or settlement could be arrived at between the parties, the record of the case shall be returned by it to the Court from which the reference has been received for disposal in accordance with law. After the records are received by the Court, the Court shall proceed to deal with such case from the stage which was reached before such reference under sub-section (1) of Section 20 of the Act. 14. In so far as second category of cases, i.e., any matter which is falling within the jurisdiction of and is not brought before any Court is concerned, any one of the parties may make an application to the Authority or Committee organizing the Lok Adalat under sub-section (1) of Section 19. On receipt of such application, the Authority or Committee may refer such matter to Lok Adalat for determination. However, before such reference, a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the other party is to be given. On receipt of such reference, the Lok Adalat shall while determining the reference before it act with utmost expedition to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties and shall be guided by the principles of justice, equity, fair play and other legal principles. If no award is made by the Lok Adalat on the ground that no compromise or settlement could be arrived at between the parties, the Lok Adalat shall advise the parties to seek remedy before the Court. 15. Every award of the Lok Adalat shall be deemed to be a decree of a Civil Court or, as the case may be, an order of any other Court. Every award made by a Lok Adalat shall be final and binding on all the parties to the dispute, and no appeal shall lie to any Court against the award. 16. It is in this background we have to appreciate Chapter VI-A dealing with pre-litigation conciliation and settlement which was introduced into the Act by way of Amendment Act No.37/2002. Every award made by a Lok Adalat shall be final and binding on all the parties to the dispute, and no appeal shall lie to any Court against the award. 16. It is in this background we have to appreciate Chapter VI-A dealing with pre-litigation conciliation and settlement which was introduced into the Act by way of Amendment Act No.37/2002. The statement of objects and reasons of this amendment is as under:- STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS The Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 was enacted to constitute legal services authorities for providing free and competent legal services to the weaker sections of the society to ensure that opportunities for securing justice were not denied to any citizen by reason of economic or other disabilities and to organize Lok Adalats to ensure that the operation of the legal system promoted justice on a basis of equal opportunity. The system of Lok Adalat, which is an innovative mechanism for alternate dispute resolution, has proved effective for resolving disputes in a spirit of conciliation outside the courts. 2. However, the major drawback in the existing scheme fo organization of the Lok Adalats under Chapter VI of the said Act is that the system of Lok Adalats is mainly based on compromise or settlement between the parties. If the parties do not arrive at any compromise or settlement, the case is either returned to the Court of law or the parties are advised to seek remedy in a court of law. This causes unnecessary delay in the dispensation of justice. If Lok Adalats are given power to decide the cases on merits in case parties fail to arrive at any compromise or settlement, this problem can be tackled to a great extent. Further, the cases which arise in relation to public utility services such as Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited, Delhi Vidyut Board, etc., need to be settled urgently so that people get justice without delay even at pre-litigation stage and thus most of the petty cases which ought not to go in the regular courts would be settled at the pre-litigation stage itself which would result in reducing the workload of the regular courts to a great extent. It is, therefore, proposed to amend the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 to set up Permanent Lok Adalats for providing compulsory pre-litigative mechanism for conciliation and settlement of cases relating to public utility services. 3. It is, therefore, proposed to amend the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 to set up Permanent Lok Adalats for providing compulsory pre-litigative mechanism for conciliation and settlement of cases relating to public utility services. 3. The salient features of proposed legislation are as follows:- (i) to provide for the establishment of Permanent Lok Adalats which shall consist of a Chairman who is or has been a district judge or additional district judge or has held judicial office higher in rank than that of the district judge and two other persons having adequate experience in public utility services; (ii) the Permanent Lok Adalat shall exercise jurisdiction in respect of one or more public utility services such as transport services of passengers or goods by air, road and water, postal, telegraph or telephone services, supply of power, light or water to the public by any establishment, public conservancy or sanitation, services in hospitals or dispensaries; and insurance services; (iii) the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Permanent Lok Adalat shall be up to rupees ten lakhs. However, the Central Government may increase the said pecuniary jurisdiction from time to time. It shall have not jurisdiction in respect of any matter relating to an offence not compoundable under any law; (iv) it also provides that before the dispute is brought before any court, any party to the dispute may make an application to the Permanent Lok Adalat for settlement of the dispute; (v) where it appears to the Permanent Lok Adalat that there exist elements of a settlement, which may be acceptable to the parties, it shall formulate the terms of a possible settlement and submit them to the parties for their observations and in case the parties reach an agreement, the Permanent Lok Adalat shall pass an award in terms thereof. In case parties to the dispute fail to reach an agreement, the Permanent Lok Adalat shall decide the dispute on merits; and (vi) every award made by the Permanent Lok Adalat shall be final and binding on all the parties thereto and shall be by a majority of the persons constituting the Permanent Lok Adalat. 4. The Bill seeks to achieve the above objects. 17. This Chapter is a self contained code. It exclusively deals with pre-litigation conciliation and settlement, constitution of Permanent Lok Adalats, cognizance of cases by Permanent Lok Adalat, procedure of Permanent Lok Adalat and awards of Permanent Lok Adalat. 4. The Bill seeks to achieve the above objects. 17. This Chapter is a self contained code. It exclusively deals with pre-litigation conciliation and settlement, constitution of Permanent Lok Adalats, cognizance of cases by Permanent Lok Adalat, procedure of Permanent Lok Adalat and awards of Permanent Lok Adalat. The Lok Adalats constituted under Section 19 is of a temporary nature as those Lok Adalats are organized at such intervals and places and for exercising such jurisdiction and for such areas. Notwithstanding the provision for Constitution of Lok Adalats under Section 19, Section 22B of the Act provides for establishment of Permanent Lok Adalats at such places and for exercising such jurisdiction in respect of one or more public utility services and for such areas as may be specified in the notification. Public Utility Service has been defined under Section 22A (b) which reads as under:-22-A. Definitions.- In this Chapter and for the purposes of Sections 22 and 23, unless the context otherwise requires.- (a) xxx xxx xxx (b) “public utility service” means any- (i) transport service for the carriage of passengers or goods by air, road or water, or (ii) postal, telegraph or telephone service; or (iii) supply of power, light or water to the public by any establishment; or (iv) system of public conservancy or sanitation; or (v) service in hospital or dispensary; or (vi) insurance service. And includes any service which the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be, may, in the public interest, by notification, declare to be a public utility service for the purposes of this Chapter. 18. Therefore, the jurisdiction of Permanent Lok Adalats is confined to public utility services only whereas Lok Adalats under Section 19 has jurisdiction over all the matters in respect of case pending before any Court or any matter which is falling the jurisdiction of and is not brought before any Court. 19. Section 22-C of the Act provides for making an application to the Permanent Lok Adalat for the settlement of dispute. The application to be made to the Permanent Lok Adalat is not in respect of a case pending before any Court. The said application should be for the settlement of dispute before the dispute is brought before any Courat. 19. Section 22-C of the Act provides for making an application to the Permanent Lok Adalat for the settlement of dispute. The application to be made to the Permanent Lok Adalat is not in respect of a case pending before any Court. The said application should be for the settlement of dispute before the dispute is brought before any Courat. In other words the Permanent Lok Adalats have no jurisdiction to decide disputes which are already pending before Courts, Such an application could be made by any party to a dispute. Once the application is made to the Permanent Lok Adalat no party to that application shall invoke the jurisdiction of any Court in the same dispute. In other words, once the party elects to approach the Permanent Lok Adalat for settlement of dispute, he cannot invoke the jurisdiction of any Court in the same dispute. Therefore, what emerges from the aforesaid provision is the jurisdiction of Permanent Lok Adalat is confined to settlement of disputes in respect of public utility services only. Secondly, the Permanent Lok Adalats have jurisdiction to entertain such disputes only if those disputes are not pending before any Court. By invoking the jurisdiction of Permanent Lok Adalats the party to the application loses his right to approach any Court thereafter in the same dispute. However, the jurisdiction of such Permanent Lok Adalats is excluded in respect of offences not compoundable under law and also where the value of the property dispute exceeds Rs.10 lakhs. 20. A dispute is brought before the Permanent Lok Adalat under sub-section (2) of Section 22-C by making an application. The procedure prescribed before the Permanent Lok Adalat is, principles of natural justice, objectivity, fair play, equity. The Permanent Lok Adalat shall not be bound by the Code of Civil Procedure and the Indian Evidence Act. The process adopted by the Lok Adalat in resolution of the dispute is conciliation. It is only when the conciliation fails, the parties fail to reach any agreement, the Permanent Lok Adalat gets jurisdiction to resolve the dispute on merits. Every award of Permanent Lok Adalat under this Act may either be on merit or in terms of the settlement agreement shall be final and binding on all the parties thereto and on persons claiming under them. Every award of Permanent Lok Adalat under this Act may either be on merit or in terms of the settlement agreement shall be final and binding on all the parties thereto and on persons claiming under them. Once the award is passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat under the Act, it shall be deemed to be a decree of the Civil Court, it shall be final and shall not be called in question in any original suit, application or execution proceedings and is enforceable by the Civil Court having local jurisdiction as if it were a decree made by that Court. 21. The Supreme Court had an occasion to consider this provision in the case of UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., Vs. AJAY SINHA AND ANOTHER reported in AIR 2008 (8) SCALE 509 , and has made few observations. At paragraph 24 of the judgment, it is observed that: “An option is given to any party to a dispute. It may be a public utility service provider or a public utility service recipient. The service must have some relation with public utility. Ordinarily insurance service would not come within the public utility service. But having regard to the statutory scheme, it must be held to be included thereunder. It is one thing to say that an authority is created under a statute to bring about a settlement through Alternate Dispute Resolution mechanism but is is other thing to say that an adjudicatory power is conferred on it. Chapter VI-A, therefore, in our opinion, deserves a closure scrutiny. In a case of this nature, the level of scrutiny must also be high.” “The Permanent Lok Adalat does not simply adopt the role of an Arbitrator whose award could be the subject matter of challenge but the role of an adjudicator. The Parliament has given the authority to the Permanent Lok Adalat to decide the matter. It has an adjudicating role to play. The validity of the said provision is not in question. But then construction of such a provision must be given in such a manner so as to make it prima facie reasonable.” “36. The Parliament has given the authority to the Permanent Lok Adalat to decide the matter. It has an adjudicating role to play. The validity of the said provision is not in question. But then construction of such a provision must be given in such a manner so as to make it prima facie reasonable.” “36. ‘Section 22-C(1) read with Section 22-C92), Section 22-C(8) and Section 22-E of the Act, exclude the jurisdiction of the civil courts by providing that when an application is made by either party to the Permanent Lok Adalat to settle a dispute at the pre-litigation stage, the PLA shall do so, and the other party is precluded from approaching the civil court in such a case. 37. Section 22-C(1) contains certain Provisos which limit the jurisdiction of the PLA. Given the principle of statutory interpretation stated earlier, these Provisos, as a corollary, must be interpreted in an expansive manner. 38. What is important to note is that with respect of public utility services, the main purpose behind Section 22-C(8) seems to be that “most of the petty cases which ought not to go in the regular Courts would be settled in the pre-litigation stage itself.” “40. We must guard against construction of a statute which would confer such a wide power in the Permanent Lok Adalat having regard to sub-Section (8) of Section © of the Act.” “It must not give an impression to any of the disputants that it from the very beginning has an adjudicatory role to play in relation to its jurisdiction without going into the statutory provisions and restrictions imposed thereunder. The Permanent Lok Adalat must exercise its power with due care and caution.” 22. A Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court in the case of MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, TONK, ETC., Vs. SERVE SEVA SANSTHAN, TONK AND OTHERS, reported in AIR 2004 RAJASTHAN 96, has observed regarding the importance of the amendment brought to the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 at paragraph 3 as under: “The importance of the amendment lies in promoting welfare of the society by enabling the people to approach Lok Adalats. The amendment attempts to remove the helplessness of a consumer which the faces in the field of public utility services. The amendment attempts to remove the helplessness of a consumer which the faces in the field of public utility services. The might of public bodies which are degenerating into store house of inaction where papers do not move from one desk to another as a matter of duty and responsibility but for extraneous consideration leaving the common man helpless, bewildered and shocked. The malady is becoming so rampant, widespread and deep that the society instead of bothering, complaining and fighting for it, accepting it as part of life The amendment in these harsh realities appears to be a silver lining which may in course of time succeed in checking the rot.” 23. Therefore, if the parties do not arrive at any compromise or settlement, the case is either returned to the Court of law or the parties are advised to seek remedy in a Court of law. This was causing unnecessary delay in the dispensation of justice. The Lok Adalat was an alternative mode of resolution of disputes to the cases, which had already reached the Court and pending adjudication before them. Even before the introduction of Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, because of the provisions of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987, constituting Lok Adalats, pending cases were referred to Lok Adalat. The system of Lok Adalat is mainly based on compromise or settlement between the parties. Therefore, when the compromise or settlement was not reached, such cases which were referred to Lok Adalats, were returned to the Court of law, as they were already before the Court. Therefore, the purpose of referring the matters to Lok Adalats was for settlement, on failure of which the matters were sent back to Courts. In so far as the cases which were entertained by the Lok Adalats were not referred by the Courts, the parties were advised to seek remedy in a Court of Law. It resulted in causing delay in dispensation of justice. It is in that context, it was felt that if the Lok Adalat are given the powers to decide the case on merits, in case the parties failed to arrive at any compromise or settlement, this problem could be tackled to great extent. It resulted in causing delay in dispensation of justice. It is in that context, it was felt that if the Lok Adalat are given the powers to decide the case on merits, in case the parties failed to arrive at any compromise or settlement, this problem could be tackled to great extent. Further the cases which arise in relation to public utility services, such as Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd, Delhi Vidyuth Board, etc., need to be settled urgently so that people get justice without delay even at pre-litigation stage and thus most of the petty cases which ought not to go to the regular Courts would be settled at the pre-litigation stage itself, which would result in reducing the work load on the regular Courts to great extent. Therefore, the main object of introducing this Chapter and constituting Permanent Lok Adalat is to provide for a forum for pre-litigation stage, more importantly, it was meant only to petty cases which ought not to go to regular Courts so that the work load of regular Courts to great extent is reduced by resolution of such petty cases. This Permanent Lok Adalat is not a remedy for all disputes. It is a remedy only to disputes between the applicant and public utility services, the nature of dispute being petty cases, which ought not to go to regular Courts. As even to decide such petty cases there was no forum or prelitigative mechanism, these Permanent Lok Adalats are constituted to fill the said vaccum. Therefore, the Permanent Lok Adalats are established for providing pre-litigation mechanism for conciliation and settlement of cases relating to public utility services. 24. It is in this background, we have to decide what are the disputes the Permanent Lok Adalat can take cognizance of, and who can approach the permanent Lok Adalat. The opening words of Section 22-C gives indication in this regard and therefore it is of utmost importance. The words used are “any party to a dispute”. The term ‘dispute’ has not been defined under the Act. Therefore it has got to be given its ordinary dictionary meaning. “Dispute” means a controversy having both positive and negative aspects. It postulates the assertion of claim by one party and its denial by the other. This may cover the entire range between genuine difference of opinion to fierce controversy. The term ‘dispute’ has not been defined under the Act. Therefore it has got to be given its ordinary dictionary meaning. “Dispute” means a controversy having both positive and negative aspects. It postulates the assertion of claim by one party and its denial by the other. This may cover the entire range between genuine difference of opinion to fierce controversy. The term ‘dispute’ in its wider sense may mean the wranglings or quarrels between the parties, one party asserting and the other denying the liability. In the narrower sense limited to contested claims of civil nature which could have been decided by civil or revenue courts. 25. The word “any party” precedes the term ‘dispute’. The word ‘any’ is significant. It is of wide amplitude. The word ‘any’ dictionarily means ‘one or same or all’. In Black’s Law Dictionary it is explained thus, ‘word “any” has a diversity of meaning and may be employed to indicate “all” or “every” as well as “same” or “one” and its meaning in a given statute’. The legislature has advisedly not used the word “any” preceding the term dispute. They have used the word ‘any’ preceding the term party. The use of the word ‘any’ party in the context it has been used indicates that it has been used in wider sense extending from one to all. Therefore, first we have to find out what is the dispute. Then find out who are all parties to the dispute. INSURANCE SERVICE 26. In the instant case we are concerned with dispute relating to Insurance Service”. Therefore, the question is who are all parties to a dispute before a Permanent Lok Adalat. “Insurance” is a contract whereby, for a stipulated consideration, one party undertakes to compensate the other for loss on a specified subject by specified perils. The party agreeing to make the compensation is usually called the “insurer” or “underwriter”, the other “insured” or “assured”; the agreed consideration, the “premium”; the written contract, ‘policy”, the vents insured against, “risks” or “perils”; and the subject, right or interest to be protected, the “insurable interest.” It is a contract whereby one undertake to indemnify another against loss, damage, or liability arising from an unknown or contingent event and is applicable only to some contingency or act to occur in future. In this contract the chances of benefit are equal to the insurer and insured. In this contract the chances of benefit are equal to the insurer and insured. The first actually pays a certain sum and the latter undertaken to pay a larger if an accident should happen. The one renders his property secure; the other receives money with the probability that it is a clear gain. The instrument by which the contract is made is called a policy, the stipulated consideration a premium. A contract of insurance is a contract uberrimae fidei, that is, a contract based on utmost good faith. If there is a breach in good faith by a party, the other party may avoid the contract. A contract of insurance is a contract of indemnity except in the case of life insurance. Life insurance is a contract insuring the life of a person by which the insurer, in consideration of a certain premium, either in a gross sum or periodical payments, undertakes to pay the person for whose benefit the insurance is made, a stipulated sum, or annuity equivalent, upon the death of the person whose life is insured, whenever this shall happen, if the insurance be for the whole life or in case this shall happen within a certain period, if the insurance be for a limited time. It is an agreement by the insurer to pay to the insured or his nominee a specified sum of money, either on the death of a designated life, or at the end of money, either on the death of a designated life, or at the end of a certain period. Provided the death does not occur before, consideration of present payment of a fixed amount, or of an annuity till the death of the period of insurance is ended. 27. The word ‘service’ is not defined under the Act. The term has variety of meanings. It may mean any benefit or any act resulting in promoting interest or happiness. It may be contractual professional, public, domestic, legal, statutory etc., The concept of service thus is very wide. How it should be understood and what it means depends in the context in which it has been used in an enactment. 28. Insurance Service may flow from a contract or a statute. The contract of insurance stipulates the rights and obligations of the parties to the contract. How it should be understood and what it means depends in the context in which it has been used in an enactment. 28. Insurance Service may flow from a contract or a statute. The contract of insurance stipulates the rights and obligations of the parties to the contract. If dispute arises under the contract any party to such contract may approach the Permanent Lok Adalats for settlement of dispute. The condition precedent for enforcement of such right is, the existence of a contract between the applicant and the Insurance Company. Generally, when the Insurance Company commits breach of the terms of the contractor or do not discharge its obligation under the contract, or there is deficiency in service, the dispute arises and the aggrieved party can approach the Permanent Lok Adalath against the Insurance Company which is a public utility service as defined under Section 22-A (b) of the Act. If such a dispute is of petty in nature, it can be normally resolved by conciliation or settlement. The rights of the parties and the obligation imposed can be ascertained by looking into the terms of the contract entered into between the parties. It is for resolution of such dispute the Permanent Lok Adalaths are constituted. In the event of such dispute not being resolved, the parties could not be driven to the Court again. It is here the Permanent Lok Adalath is also conferred power to adjudicate the said dispute. But the dispute to be adjudicated by the Lok Adalath either at the pre-litigation stage or on merits is a dispute between the parties to the contract. The Permanent Lok Adalath is not conferred with the jurisdiction to resolve a dispute between a person who is not a party to the contract of insurance service and the insurer. Such a claim by a person who is not a party to the contract is not maintainable before the Permanent Lok Adalath and the Permanent Lok Adalath has no jurisdiction to entertain such claim. 29. If the claim is based on any statute, then one has to look into the provisions of the statute to find out the right of the claimants, the obligation of the Insurance Company, and then find out whether such a claim falls within the jurisdiction of the Permanent Lok Adalath. 29. If the claim is based on any statute, then one has to look into the provisions of the statute to find out the right of the claimants, the obligation of the Insurance Company, and then find out whether such a claim falls within the jurisdiction of the Permanent Lok Adalath. When the claim is under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles ACt, we have to find out, is there any statutory obligation on the part of the Insurance Company to render any service and settle the claim of the claimants. Therefore, it is necessary to look into the scheme of the Motor Vehicles Act to find out any such statutory obligation to render insurance service. 30. Section 146 of M.V. Act under Chapter XI mandates that no person shall use, except as a passenger, or cause or allow other person to use a motor vehicle in a public place, unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that person or that other person, as the case may be, a Policy of Insurance complying with requirements of this Chapter. Section 147 of the M.V. Act deals with the requirement of policies of insurance and limit of liability. Section 149 of M.V. Act casts a liability on the insurance company to pay compensation subject to the provisions of the M.V. Act. Section 165 of M.V.Act found in Chapter XII of M.V. Act 1988, provide for constitution of Claims Tribunal. A State Government may. By notification in the Official Gazette, constitute one or more Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals for such area as may be specified in the notification for the purpose of adjudicating upon claims for compensation in respect of accidents involving the death of, or bodily injury to, persons arising out of the use of motor vehicles, or damages to any property of a third party so arising or both. Under Section 166 of M.V. Act, application for compensation could be lodged. Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act, gives an option regarding claims for compensation in certain cases. Under Section 166 of M.V. Act, application for compensation could be lodged. Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act, gives an option regarding claims for compensation in certain cases. It provides that notwithstanding anything contained in the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, where the death of, or bodily injury to, any person gives rise to a claim for compensation under this Act and also under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, the person entitled to compensation may without prejudice to the provisions of Chapter X claim such compensation under either of those Acts but not under both. Award could be passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal under Section 168 of M.V. Act. The procedure that is contemplated for holding any enquiry under Section 168 of M.V. Act is provided under Section 169 of M.V. Act which would mandate that a claim petition shall follow rules that may be made and follows such summary proceedings as it thinks fit. The insurer could be impleaded as party to the proceedings under Section 170 of M.V. Act. Section 173 of M.V. Act, 1988 would deal with the provisions relating to appeals that could be filed against the judgments and awards passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Section 175 of the Motor Vehicles Act, bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts to go into the claim for compensation in a motor vehicle accident. It states that where any Claims Tribunal has been constituted for any area, no Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any question relating to any claim for compensation which may be adjudicated upon by the Claims Tribunal in respect of the claim for compensation shall be granted by the Civil Court. Section 176 of M.V. Act would mandate grant of power to State Government to frame rules for the purposes of carrying into effect the provisions of Section 165 of Section 175 of M.V. Act. 30. The Supreme Court in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANYLTD. Vs. Section 176 of M.V. Act would mandate grant of power to State Government to frame rules for the purposes of carrying into effect the provisions of Section 165 of Section 175 of M.V. Act. 30. The Supreme Court in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANYLTD. Vs. NICOLETTA ROHTAGI reported in 2002 ACJ 1959, interpreting the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act and the intention of the legislature was to protect the third party rights and not that of the insurer, at paragraph 13 has held as under: “Under Section 96(2) of 1939 Act which corresponds to Section 149(2) of 1988Act, an insurance company has no right to be a party to an action by the injured person or dependants of deceased against the insured. However, the said provision gives in the insurer the right to be made a party to the case and to defend it. It is, therefore, obvious that the said right is a creature of the statute and its content depends on the provisions of the statute. After the insurer has been made a party to a case or claim, the question arises what re the defences available to it under the statute. The language employed in enacting sub-section (2) of Section 149 appears to be plain and simple and there is no ambiguity in it. It shows that when an insurer is impleaded and has been given notice of the case, he is entitled to defend the action on the grounds enumerated in the sub-section, namely, sub-section (2) of Section 149 of 1988 Act, and no other ground is available to him. The insurer is not allowed to contest the claim of the injured or heirs of the deceased on other ground which is available to an insured or breach of any other conditions of the policy which do not find place in sub-section (2) of Section 149 of 1988 Act. If an insurer is permitted to contest the claim on other grounds it would mean adding more grounds of contest to the insurer than what the statute has specifically provided for.” 31. The statutory liability of the Insurance Company to satisfy the third parties, i.e., a party who is not a party to a contract of insurance is found in Section 149. It casts a duty on the insurer to satisfy the judgments and awards against persons insured in respect of third party risk. The statutory liability of the Insurance Company to satisfy the third parties, i.e., a party who is not a party to a contract of insurance is found in Section 149. It casts a duty on the insurer to satisfy the judgments and awards against persons insured in respect of third party risk. The heading of the said Section is significant. The duty is to satisfy judgment and awards and not the claim of the third parties. If the claim of the third party is adjudicated and the judgment and award is passed, then, the insurer shall pay to the person entitled to the benefit of the decree, any sum not exceeding the sum assured payable thereunder, as if he were the judgment debtor, in respect of the liability, together with any amount payable in respect of the costs and any sum payable in respect of interest on that sum by virtue of any enactment relating to interest on judgments. So the condition precedent for such payment by the insurer is the passing of the judgment and award or decree. Till such time, there is no liability on the insurer under the Motor Vehicles Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 149 provides that as the insurer has to pay the amount awarded in the judgment or award, the insurer shall be made party to such proceedings before the commencement of the proceedings Once the insurer is made party to such claim against the insured, the insurer is made party to such claim against the insured, the insurer has been given the right under the aforesaid provision to defend the action on any of the grounds mentioned therein. The grounds set out in the said provision are breach of a specified condition of the policy or the policy being void on the ground that it was obtained by non-disclosure of material fact or by representation of fact which was false in some material particulars. This is a defence against the insured and not against the claimant. The grounds set out in the said provision are breach of a specified condition of the policy or the policy being void on the ground that it was obtained by non-disclosure of material fact or by representation of fact which was false in some material particulars. This is a defence against the insured and not against the claimant. However, Section 170 makes it clear that in the course of any enquiry, on such claim petition, if there is collusion between the person making the claim and the person against whom the claim is made, or the person against whom the claim is made has failed to contest the claim, the insurer has been conferred the right to contest the claim on all or any of the grounds that are available to the person against whom the claim has been made. 32. Thus the Act makes out a clear distinction between a contract of Insurance, in terms of common law and the statutory insurance, which is beyond or above the parameters of a contract of indemnity. The Parliament, in its wisdom, has mandated a Motor Vehicle Accident Tribunal to pass an award against the Insurer, or the owner, or the deriver. By wording Section 168 in this special manner Parliament has more than indicated that contract of indemnity obtaining in Common Law has no relevance. Section 168, in simpler terms, means an Insurer shall satisfy the award if there was a policy on the date of accident covering the risks arising out of the use of the vehicle. If there was no policy covering the vehicle, then as per Section 168 it is the insured owner who has to satisfy the award. If the owner was dead and if the vehicle was not covered by insurance on the date of accident, it is the driver who has to satisfy the award. Parliament being aware of these facts and nuances of law has worded Section 168 in a special manner, doing away with the concept of indemnification under common law. There is no question of joint and several liability and of indemnification for purpose of Chapter X and XI of MV Act 1988. 33. Therefore, from the scheme of the Motor Vehicles Act, it is clear that there is no liability on part of the Insurance Company to answer or satisfy the claim of the claimants under the Act. There is no question of joint and several liability and of indemnification for purpose of Chapter X and XI of MV Act 1988. 33. Therefore, from the scheme of the Motor Vehicles Act, it is clear that there is no liability on part of the Insurance Company to answer or satisfy the claim of the claimants under the Act. However, once such claim is enquired into, adjudicated upon and an award is passed, if there is a valid insurance policy covering the risk of the insured in respect of the motor vehicle involved in the accident, then, the insurer steps into the shoes of the judgment debtor and he is under an obligation to pay the amount stipulated in the judgment and award or decree. Therefore the liability to pay the amount to the claimant arises only after the judgment/award/decree and not before. Therefore it cannot be said that there exist a dispute between the claimant and the insurance company which gives cause of action for the claimant to approach the Permanent Lok Adalath under Section 22(c) of the Act. No dispute exist between the claimant and the insurer till the judgment/award or decree is passed by the Claims Tribunal constituted under the Motor Vehicles Act. If after passing of such judgment/award or decree specifying the amount payable by the insurer, under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act if the amount is sought, then it can be said that a dispute exist between the claimant and the Insurance Company and not earlier to such point of time. 34. Therefore under the provisions of the MVC Act, the claim has to be preferred against the insured and the driver. Insurance Company is also added as a party by virtue of Section 149(2) of the Act. No claim against the Insurance Company is maintainable without the owner of the vehicle or the driver of the vehicle being made a party to the proceedings. Whereas, the claim for compensation is validly maintainable against the insured and the driver without making the Insurance Company, a party. The Tribunal constituted under the MVC Act has been conferred the jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate such claims. But, the Permanent Lok Adalat constituted under the Act has jurisdiction to entertain, conciliate and if it fails adjudicate a claim, only against a public utility service. The Tribunal constituted under the MVC Act has been conferred the jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate such claims. But, the Permanent Lok Adalat constituted under the Act has jurisdiction to entertain, conciliate and if it fails adjudicate a claim, only against a public utility service. It cannot entertain and adjudicate any clam against a private individual like the insured and the driver. The dispute should be between a public utility service and any party to the said dispute. Therefore a dispute with reference to Insurance service necessarily means the claim is against the Insurance Company. The claim for compensation for the death of a victim of a road accident or for the injury sustained in an accident cannot be characterized as petty claims. It is a substantial claim. The Parliament has enacted the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 specially constituting the Tribunal to adjudicate such claims and has specifically excluded the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts to entertain such claims. A statutory appeal is provided against such adjudication to the Hon’ble High Court. Normally, such claims are decided on the basis of the evidence recorded, both oral and documentary. The Permanent Lok Adalat, is broadly meant to decide petty cases. When the conciliation fails, the Permanent Lok Adalath has been vested with the power to decide the case on merits. However, no appeal is provided against such adjudication and the award passed by the Permanent Lok Adalath has been made final. It is in this background as is clear from the aforesaid statutory provisions the claims for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act is not principally against the public utility services, but against the insured and the driver of the vehicle and only in the event of the judgment/award or decree is passed, the Insurance Company is liable to pay the said amount. 35. Therefore, the Permanent Lok Adalath has no jurisdiction to entertain the claim under the Motor Vehicles Act, by a person who is not a party to the Contract of Insurance, under Section 22-C of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. Hence, I pass the following order:- (a) All the Writ Petitions are allowed. (b) The impugned orders holding that the Permanent Lok Adalat has got jurisdiction to entertain claim petitions under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 is hereby quashed. Hence, I pass the following order:- (a) All the Writ Petitions are allowed. (b) The impugned orders holding that the Permanent Lok Adalat has got jurisdiction to entertain claim petitions under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 is hereby quashed. (c) All the claims preferred by the claimants are rejected, with liberty to them to prefer the claims before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal constituted under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. (d) Parties to bear their own costs. High Court registry is directed to send a copy of this order to all the Permanent Lok Adalats in the State for their guidance.