Order I.A. No. 1425 of 2010: I.A. No. 1755 of 2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The respondents were issued notice earlier and in respect of respondent no. 1, steps for substituted services of notice were taken by the petitioner and thereafter, the writ petitioner filed compliance of the substituted service of notice upon the respondent no. 1 by filing I.A. No. 1755 of 2010 enclosing the paper publication. 3. However, respondents have not appeared to contest the case. 4. The petitioner-Insurance Company is aggrieved by Award dated 4.7.2007 by which a sum of Rs. 1,35,000/- was directed to be paid to the respondent no. 1 by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Jamshedpur in P.L.A. Case No. 61 of 2007 upon claim application being preferred by the respondent no. 1. 5. The respondent no. 1, is the father of the deceased son, who died in a road accident on 27.7.2007 involving vehicle bearing registration no. JH-05J-5082. He preferred Pre-Litigative Case being PLA Case No. 61 of 2007 for claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 6,22,000/-under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Insurance Company appeared on notice and contested the case. The main ground for assailing the impugned order on behalf of the petitioner is that in the absence of any compromise or without framing any terms of settlement, which was required to be followed between the parties under Section 22(C)(7) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, the Permanent Lok Adalat cannot adjudicate the dispute on merit invoking the power under Section 22(C)(8) of the Legal Services Authorities Act. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has relied upon the judgment rendered in the similar circumstances in the case of New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs. Smt. Purnima Rai and Others in W.P.(C) No. 7465 of 2006 vide order dated 31.7.2012 wherein earlier judgments rendered by this Court in the case of State Bank of India, Dhanbad vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr., passed in W.P.(C) No. 1449 of 2008 vide order dated 9.4.2009 and in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Kutchery Road, Ranchi vs. Bodya Oraon and Anr. in W.P.(C) No. 1975 of 2007 date 30.4.2012 have also been relied upon while quashing the Award of the Permanent Lok Adalat Learned counsel for the petitioner-Insurance Company submits that the Permanent Lok Adalat did not make any attempt for conciliation or framing of any terms of settlement to offer to the rival parties to arrive at a compromise and proceeded to adjudicate the dispute on merit in the nature of specialized Tribunal like the Motor Vehicle Claims Tribunal, which is specially notified and constituted under the provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It is submitted on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner that even otherwise the issue was hotly contested on merit on the grounds that the deceased, a gratuitous passenger, was himself negligent while policy was for driver and Khalasi of the owners only. It is further submitted that in these circumstances, the Permanent Lok Adalat has committed serious error of jurisdiction while deciding the dispute on merit by rendering the impugned award. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the relevant materials on record and award. It appears that the Pre-Litigative Case being PLA Case No. 61 of 2007 was preferred by the respondent no. 1, father of the deceased, Laxman Kumar, who made a claim for compensation under the provisions of Motor Vehicle Act in relation to the incident which occurred on 27.7.2003 involving Dumper bearing Registration No. JH-05J-5082 belonging to the respondent no. 2. From perusal of the impugned Award itself, it appears that claim of the claimants was contested by the present petitioner-New India Assurance Company Ltd. on different counts including the fact that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger for the offending vehicle, therefore, Insurance Company was not liable to pay the compensation under the policy in question. Learned Permanent Lok Adalat, has observed that the Insurance Company denied to conciliate, therefore, the Permanent Lok Adalat proceeded to decide the dispute on merit under Section 22(C)(8) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. Learned Permanent Lok Adalat, has observed that the Insurance Company denied to conciliate, therefore, the Permanent Lok Adalat proceeded to decide the dispute on merit under Section 22(C)(8) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. However, ratio laid down by the judgment of this Court rendered hereinabove clearly lays down that in the matter of adjudicating the dispute on merit, the Permanent Lok Adalat has to follow the procedure relating to the provisions of Section 22(C)(4) to (7) of the Act, 1987 and only on failure of the parties to arrive at terms of settlement or compromise can it proceed to decide the dispute on merit. The Permanent Lok Adalat while passing the impugned Award failed to do so and committed serious error of jurisdiction by violating the procedure of the Act, as upheld by this Court in the judgment referred hereinabove (supra). The Permanent Lok Adalat is creature of the statute and it is required to remain within the bounds of its jurisdiction. In such circumstance, award passed in this case has been delivered by transgressing the jurisdiction, which requires to be interfered in exercise of judicial review of this Court. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. 7. However, it is observed that the claimant may have remedy to pursue his claim before appropriate Forum, which is created under the Motor Vehicles Act, if so advised. 8. I.A. No. 1755 of 2010 and I.A. No. 1425 of 2010 stand disposed of. 9. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.