Order The Insurance Company is the petitioner in the first case, which is aggrieved by the order and the award dated 29.12.2006 and 30.12.2006, respectively passed by the Court of learned Court of Permanent Lok Adalat in P.L.A. Case No. 19 of 2006, whereby a compensation of Rs. 6,49,000/- plus interest at the rate of 12 per cent thereon has been awarded in favour of the respondents-claimants in the first petition. 2. In the second writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 2662 of 2007, the claimant-petitioner has come before this Court seeking enhancement of the award granted by the Permanent Lok Adalat as aforesaid. 3. The petitioner Insurance Company assails the award on the ground that the learned Permanent Lok Adalat failed to follow the procedure prescribed under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 by not framing terms of settlement under Sections 22(C), 4 to 7 of the Act, 1987 and offering to the rival parties to arrive at a compromise or agreed settlement over the same. It straightway proceeded to decide the dispute on merits by only observing that the parties have failed to conciliate. It is submitted that the requirement of law under the relevant provisions as referred to hereinabove and upheld by the decision of this Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Md. Anjar Alam & Ors. in W.P.(C) No. 6971 of 2007 vide judgment dated 2.11.2012 has not been followed by the Permanent Lok Adalat before proceeding to decide the dispute on merits. 4. Counsel for the petitioner has also relied on the judgment rendered by single Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 1449 of 2008, Reported in 2009(2) JLJR 684 , dated 9.4.2009 in the case of State Bank of India, Dhanbad vs. State of Jharkhand as well as the judgment rendered by the' Division Bench of this Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Kutchery Road, Ranchi vs. Bodya Oraon and Anr. in W.P.(C) No. 1975 of 2007, Ed.-Reported in 2012(3) JLJR 213 , dated 30.4.2012, which has also been relied upon in the aforesaid judgment. The aforesaid judgment dated 2.11.2012 clearly laid down that the contours of the powers and jurisdiction of the Permanent Lok Adalat in deciding the dispute in respect of Motor Vehicle Accident. Claim cases under the provisions of the Legal Services Authorities Act. The aforesaid judgment dated 2.11.2012 clearly laid down that the contours of the powers and jurisdiction of the Permanent Lok Adalat in deciding the dispute in respect of Motor Vehicle Accident. Claim cases under the provisions of the Legal Services Authorities Act. It is further submitted that this was a case where the claims were hotly contested on merits as well since the driver of the offending vehicle in question did not have valid driving licence at the time when accident took place. The driving licence had already expired and it was subsequently renewed on 7.7.2004. The findings of the learned Permanent Lok Adalat in para-11 of the judgment on that issue is totally contrary to the legal position as under Section 15 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Driving License has to be renewed within 30 days of expiry and only then it will be deemed to be renewed from the date of expiry. However, learned Permanent Lok Adalat in the facts held totally opposite although the renewal did not take place within 30 days of the expiry of the said Driving License. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent-claimant has not been able to dispute either of the grounds taken by the petitioner. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and gone through the relevant materials on record as well as the impugned award. The claim application was preferred by the claimant-respondent under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1994 (sic-1988?) claiming compensation for injuries suffered to him in a Motor Vehicle Accident on 22.6.2004 caused by a Truck bearing No. BR-16P-0780 and an F.I.R. was also registered to that effect. The claimants thereafter preferred a claim application in Pre-litigative case before the Permanent Lok Adalat being P.L.A. Case No. 19 of 2006, claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.9,85,200.00. The owner of the vehicle did not appear despite notice. The Insurance Company appeared and seriously contested the case on merits. Although, an observation has been made by the Permanent Lok Adalat that the parties failed to arrive at compromise even on making efforts for conciliation but it is not disputed that no terms of settlement were framed or offered to the parties before proceeding to decide the dispute on merits in a case. Although, an observation has been made by the Permanent Lok Adalat that the parties failed to arrive at compromise even on making efforts for conciliation but it is not disputed that no terms of settlement were framed or offered to the parties before proceeding to decide the dispute on merits in a case. It is further submitted that the findings of the learned Permanent Lok Adalat at Para-11 of the award in respect of validity of license of the driver of the offending vehicle in question is totally contrary to the provisions of law under the Motor Vehicles Act. The Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation in cases where terms and conditions of the validity are not diligently and. strictly followed by the owner or driver of the vehicle in question. 7. However, learned Permanent Lok Adalat proceeded to deliver an award to the extent of Rs. 6,49,000/- plus interest in favour of the petitioner without following procedure and the mandate prescribed under the Legal Authorities Act. The issue whether a Permanent Lok Adalat can entertain a dispute relating to Motor Vehicle Accident Claim is no longer res integra as has been held in the judgment delivered by the Division Bench in W.P.(C) No. 1975 of 2007, Ed.-Reported in 2012(3) JLJR 213 (supra) and it has also been held in the said judgment and followed ill the subsequent judgments by the learned single Judge Bench of this Court that the Permanent Lok Adalat has to follow the mandate and the procedure prescribed under Sections 22(C), 4 to 7 of the Act, 1987 by framing terms of settlement and offering to the parties and also making efforts for conciliation between the parties. If the parties failed to arrive at compromise over the terms of settlement only thereafter the dispute is to be decided on merits. The learned Lok Adalat having failed to follow the aforesaid procedure prescribed under the law, the impugned award suffers from serious errors of jurisdiction which is required to be interfered in exercise of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, under which the instant writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 2403 of 2007 has been preferred. Accordingly the impugned award is quashed, order dated 29.12.2006 and the award awarded by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Jamshedpur dated 30.12.2006 is also quashed. Accordingly, writ petition being W.P.(C) No.2403 of 2007 is allowed. 8. Accordingly the impugned award is quashed, order dated 29.12.2006 and the award awarded by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Jamshedpur dated 30.12.2006 is also quashed. Accordingly, writ petition being W.P.(C) No.2403 of 2007 is allowed. 8. Since, the impugned award itself has been quashed in W.P.(C) No. 2403 of 2007, the relief sought for, by the claimant in the connected writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 2662 of 2007 also does not survive as he has claimed an enhancement of compensation awarded by the Permanent Lok Adalat. Accordingly, W.P.(C) No. 2662 of 2007 is also dismissed. It is, however, observed that the claimants may have liberty to approach the competent forum created under Motor Vehicles Act, if so advised, for seeking compensation in accordance with law.