JUDGMENT Mr. Rameshwar Singh Malik, J.: - The present writ petition is directed against the award dated 9.5.2011 (Annexure P-1), passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Gurgaon, directing the petitioner insurance company to pay the due amount to the claimant-respondent No.2. 2. Facts first. Respondent-claimant was owner of a Tata truck bearing registration No. HR-55-G-1690. The vehicle was insured with the petitioner-Insurance company and the insurance policy was valid from 14.11.2009 to 13.11.2010. The vehicle met with an accident on 25.2.2010, wherein the vehicle was damaged. Petitioner-company was informed about the accident on the same day. A surveyor was appointed by the company for assessing the loss caused, due to damage to the vehicle, in a road accident. The surveyor submitted his report. Application for claiming the compensation was filed by the claimant vide Annexure P-2. Petitioner-company filed its reply vide Annexure P- 3. After hearing the parties, the Permanent Lok Adalat vide impugned award dated 9.5.2011 (Annexure P-1), accepted the application of the respondent-claimant and issued direction to the petitioner-company, to pay the due amount to the claimant. Hence, this writ petition. 3. Notice of motion was issued. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while passing the impugned award, the Permanent Lok Adalat acted without jurisdiction. He further submits that the amount awarded by the Permanent Lok Adalat was on the higher side and the surveyor report has not been kept in view. To substantiate his arguments, reliance has been placed on two judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sikka Papers Limited v. National Insurance Company Limited and others, [2009(4) Law Herald (SC) 2168] : (2009) 7 SCC 777 and Sri Venkateswara Syndicate v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and another, [2009(5) Law Herald (SC) 3396] : (2009) 8 SCC 507 . Finally, he prays for setting aside the impugned order, by allowing the present writ petition. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the judgment of this Court in Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Vijay Kumar and another (CWP No.20825 of 2010) decided on 4.1.2012 squarely covers the present case against the petitioner and in favour of respondent-claimant. He further submits that surveyor report was undated and it was conveniently silent about the bills of the claimant. He further submits that surveyor report was undated and it was conveniently silent about the bills of the claimant. He next contended that the petitioner-insurance company, at the first opportunity, while filing its written statement before the Permanent Lok Adalat (Annexure P-3), did not say anything about the surveyor’s report. The written statement was also undated. Thus, the learned Permanent Lok Adalat has very rightly passed the impugned award in favour of the claimant. On the issue of jurisdiction, he submits that in view of law laid down by this Court in Reliance General Insurance Company’s case (supra), the Permanent Lok Adalat had the jurisdiction and rightly proceeded to decide the case on merits while passing the impugned award. Thus, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length, after careful perusal of the record of the case and giving thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions raised, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present one is not a fit case, warranting any interference at the hands of this Court, while exercising its writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. To say so, reasons are more than one, which are being recorded hereinafter. 7. It has gone undisputed on the record that respondent-claimant was the owner of Tata Truck bearing registration no. HR-55-G- 1690. It is further not in dispute that vehicle was insured with the petitioner-insurance company. It is also not in dispute that the accident took place when the insurance policy was valid. It is further pleaded case of the claimant that after the survey of the vehicle, petitioner-company assured the claimant and asked him to get the vehicle repaired from the authorised service center. He was further assured that payment of bills raised by the authorised service center shall be made, as per the insurance policy, which was cash-less policy. 8. A perusal of the surveyor’s report will show that surveyor has assessed the loss @Rs.51,428.25/-. Thus, it becomes clear that the petitioner-insurance company did not dispute its liability. The only dispute raised by the insurance company was about the quantum. Since the petitioner-insurance company did not dispute the claim as bogus or frivolous, the Permanent Lok Adalat was having the jurisdiction to entertain and decide the claim on merits, after the parties failed to come at an amicable settlement. The only dispute raised by the insurance company was about the quantum. Since the petitioner-insurance company did not dispute the claim as bogus or frivolous, the Permanent Lok Adalat was having the jurisdiction to entertain and decide the claim on merits, after the parties failed to come at an amicable settlement. The relevant observations made by this Court in this regard, in Reliance General Insurance Company’s case (supra), read as under:- 24. Before parting with the judgment I would like to summarize as under :- If reference is made to the Lok Adalat under Section 20 of the Act, Lok Adalat without using any coercion or undue pressure by applying the principle of natural justice, equity, persuade the parties to reach to an amicable settlement. If settlement is arrived at Lok Adalat shall pass award accordingly. However, if parties do not reach to the final settlement despite of best efforts of the Lok Adalat to explore the possibility of settlement, Lok Adalat shall have no option except to return the reference to the Court wherefrom it was received. 25. If PLA PUS is approached under Section 22C at the pre litigation stage in relation of public utility services and other party disputes the claim saying claim is bogus and case involves disputed questions of facts and law and cannot be settled by the intervention of the PLA PUS then conciliation proceedings shall stand terminated and PLA PUC shall have absolutely no jurisdiction to invoke Section 22C(8) to decide the dispute directly. However, if during the conciliation proceedings under sub-sections (4), (5), (6) and (7) of Section 22C parties to the application have narrowed down their disputes and are not able to come to the final figure then by invoking sub-section (8) PLA PUS can decide the differences by applying principles of fair play, equity, natural justice, objectivity as provided under Section 22D of the Act.” 9. The view taken by this Court also finds support from the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bar Council of India v. Union of India, [2012(5) Law Herald (SC) 3695] : 2012 (8) SCC 243 and Inter Global Aviation Ltd v. N. Satchidanand, 2011 (7) SCC 463 . Relevant observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bar Council of India’s case (supra), which can be gainfully followed in the present case, read as under:- “16.2. Relevant observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bar Council of India’s case (supra), which can be gainfully followed in the present case, read as under:- “16.2. On satisfaction that there is likelihood of settlement in the proceedings, the Permanent Lok Adalat may formulate the terms of possible settlement of the dispute and give to the parties for their observations and where the parties reach at an agreement on the settlement of the dispute, they shall sign the settlement/agreement and Permanent Lok Adalat then passes an award in terms thereof and furnishes a copy of the same to each of the parties concerned. 17. Upto the above pre-litigation conciliation and settlement procedure, there is no problem or issue. The petitioner is seriously aggrieved by the provision contained in Section 22- C(8) which provides that where the parties fail to reach at an agreement under sub-section (7), the Permanent Lok Adalat shall, if the dispute does not relate to any offence, decide the dispute. This provision followed by Section 22-D which, inter-alia, provides that while deciding a dispute on merit the Permanent Lok Adalat shall not be bound by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and Section 22-E which accords finality to the award of Permanent Lok Adalat under sub-section (1) and the provision made in sub-section (4) that every award made by the Permanent Lok Adalat shall be final and hence shall not be called in question in any original suit, application or execution proceedings form mainly bone of contention. Are these provisions violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and contrary to rule of law, fairness and even- handed justice? are the questions to be considered. 22. It is necessary to bear in mind that the disputes relating to public utility services have been entrusted to Permanent Lok Adalats only if the process of conciliation and settlement fails. The emphasis is on settlement in respect of disputes concerning public utility services through the medium of Permanent Lok Adalat. It is for this reason that sub-section (1) of Section 22-C states in no unambiguous terms that any party to a dispute may before the dispute is brought before any court make an application to the Permanent Lok Adalat for settlement of dispute. Thus, settlement of dispute between the parties in matters of public utility services is the main theme. It is for this reason that sub-section (1) of Section 22-C states in no unambiguous terms that any party to a dispute may before the dispute is brought before any court make an application to the Permanent Lok Adalat for settlement of dispute. Thus, settlement of dispute between the parties in matters of public utility services is the main theme. However, where despite the endeavours and efforts of the Permanent Lok Adalat the settlement between the parties is not through and the parties are required to have their dispute determined and adjudicated, to avoid delay in adjudication of disputes relating to public utility services, the Parliament has intervened and conferred power of adjudication upon the Permanent Lok Adalat. Can the power conferred on Permanent Lok Adalats to adjudicate the disputes between the parties concerning public utility service upto a specific pecuniary limit, if they do not relate to any offence, as provided under Section 22-C(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 VI-A 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.” 10. Respectfully following the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and applying the same to the facts of the present case, it is unhesitatingly held that since neither any jurisdictional error nor any patent illegality apparent on the record of the case, has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the present writ petition is misconceived and liable to be dismissed. The impugned award of the learned Permanent Lok Adalat deserves to be upheld. 11. The impugned award of the learned Permanent Lok Adalat deserves to be upheld. 11. Before arriving at a judicious conclusion, the Permanent Lok Adalat discussed each and every aspect of the matter including the issues involved and pressed before it. The relevant operative part of the impugned award, reads as under:- 4. We have heard Ld. counsel for the parties and have gone through the pleadings and the documents. It is proved that the applicant is the registered owner of the vehicle in question. The same was insured with the respondent from 14.11.2009 to 13.11.2010. Factum of accident is proved. Report made by the police is also proved. Intimation given to the respondent is also proved. Application has got the vehicle repaired from Delhi Automobiles and Triumph Auto Engg. and copy of the bills are marked as A for Rs.66355/- of Automobiles then the bill copy of which is marked as B by us today is of Rs.2,64,761/- of Triumph Auto Engg.(p). Rejection of the claim on the ground that chassis of the vehicle was found extended is without, any merit. No such objection was raised at the time of the insurance of the vehicle. It is not proved as to when the chassis was extended. There is not proved any violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Thus rejection of the claim by the respondent is not justified. 5. So we direct the respondent to pay Rs.3,31,116/- (three lac thirty one thousand one hundred and sixteen only) alongwith interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of the institution of the present application till payment to the applicant. The petition is disposed of, accordingly File be consigned to the record room.” 12. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner failed to point out any illegality in the impugned award including on the issue of jurisdiction. Further, the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in Sikka Papers Limited’s case (supra) and Sri Venkateswar Syndicate’s case (supra) have been found to be of no help to the petitioner, being distinguishable on facts. 13. As noticed above, the present one is not a case where the petitioner-insurance company might have pleaded or argued that the claim of the respondent-claimant was totally bogus or frivolous. Even the surveyor’s report does not say so. 13. As noticed above, the present one is not a case where the petitioner-insurance company might have pleaded or argued that the claim of the respondent-claimant was totally bogus or frivolous. Even the surveyor’s report does not say so. The dispute was only about the quantum of the amount to be paid. Having said that, this Court feels no hesitation to conclude that the learned Permanent Lok Adalat was very much vested with the jurisdiction to entertain and decide the application of respondent-claimant on merits. That is what has been done by the Permanent Lok Adalat. Thus, the Permanent Lok Adalat has committed no error of law while passing the impugned award, which deserves to be upheld. 14. It is also a matter of record that the respondent/claimant got his vehicle repaired from the authorised service center. When the bills of the authorised service center were not honoured and paid by the petitioner-insurance company, claimant-respondent was left with no other option except to approach the Permanent Lok Adalat, by moving his application (Annexure P-2). 15. In view of what has been discussed here-in-above, it is held that learned Permanent Lok Adalat appreciated the issues involved, in the right perspective while passing the impugned award. The claimant-respondent duly proved his case by placing on record relevant documents. The Permanent Lok Adalat also satisfied itself about the genuine claim of the respondent-claimant before recording its cogent findings. 16. No other argument was raised. 17. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, this Court is of the considered view that the present writ petition is misconceived, bereft of merit and without any substance. Thus, it must fail. No case for interferencep has been made out. 18. Resultantly, the instant writ petition stands dismissed, however, with no order as to costs. -----------------------