JUDGMENT Pankaj Naqvi,J.: - Heard Sri A.C. Nigam, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State. The National Insurance Company has preferred this writ petition against award dated 27.03.2012 passed by Permanent Lok Adalat, Jhansi awarding Rs.29,186/- as compensation. Respondent no.2/ Smt. Gayatri filed a claim petition before the Permanent Lok Adalat, Jhansi alleging that on 13.11.2011 at about 12: 30 noon, while she along with her husband were going to Hansari in an Auto Rikshaw (UP93- T 7841), which was rashly and negligently driven, turned turtle, sustaining fracture in her collar-bone and ribs, incurring medical expenses for treatment and loss of income, claimed Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation. 2. Petitioner contested the claim by denying factum of accident and by alleging that respondent/ claimant colluded with the owner of offending auto rickshaw as the latter did not intimate the Insurance Company of the alleged accident. It was further alleged that such a claim is exclusively triable by a Claims Tribunal constituted under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The owner too contested the claim by denying the factum of accident, but admitted the insurance of offending vehicle with petitioner- Insurance Company and thus alleged that liability if any is of the Insurance Company. 3. It appears that the Permanent Lok Adalat attempted to conciliate the matter between the parties, but could not succeed, thus proceeded to adjudicate the issues on merits. Issue No.1 related to the jurisdiction of the Permanent Lok Adalat. The Permanent Lok Adalat, after examining the provisions of Section-22-C of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 was of the view that such a claim would be cognizable before it. Issue No.2 related to as to whether claimant sustained injuries on account of rash and negligent driving of driver of the offending vehicle. The Permanent Lok Adalat after examining the evidence of the claimant/ injured, FIR lodged against the owner of the offending vehicle in Case Crime no.483 of 2011 under Sections 279, 338 of IPC read with Section 183 of the Motor Vehicles Act and after perusing the affidavits (66 Kha & 67 Kha) of Investigator and Administrative officer of the Insurance Company and medical reports, 67 Kha, 37-Ga, 39-Ga and 40-Ga (X-ray plate indicating fracture of the collar-bone and the two ribs) held that claimant-respondent no.2 did sustain injuries in the alleged accident. Issue no.3 related to the quantum of compensation to be awarded. Issue no.3 related to the quantum of compensation to be awarded. The Permanent Lok Adalat after considering the evidence in support of medical expenses incurred by respondent no.2, granted Rs.29,186/- as compensation by award dated 27.03.2012. 4. It was vehemently urged by Sri Nigam that the Permanent Lok Adalat had no jurisdiction to entertain a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act as the claim was wholly and exclusively cognizable before a Claims Tribunal constituted under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and in support thereof relies upon the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ajay Sinha & another, (2008) 7 SCC 454 and Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Dasru Patel & Ors., AIR 2011 Chh 149 . 5. In order to achieve the goal enshrined under Article 39A of the Constitution of India, the Parliament enacted The Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (for short 'the Act') with the object to constitute legal services authorities to provide free and competent legal services to the weaker sections of the Society to ensure that opportunities for securing justice are not denied to any citizen by a reason of economic or other disabilities and to organize Lok Adalat to secure that the operation of the Legal System promotes justice on a basis of equal opportunities. Chapter-6 of the said Act deals with Lok Adalats. Section 19 of the Act relates to organisation of Lok Adalats. Similarly, sub-section (5) of Section 19 provides that a Lok Adalat shall have a jurisdiction to determine and to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the authorities to a dispute in respect of-(i) any case pending before; or (ii) any matter which is falling within the jurisdiction of, and is not brought before, any court for which the Lok Adalat is organised. A proviso appended thereto provides that the Lok Adalat shall have no jurisdiction in respect of any case or matter relating to an offence not compoundable under any law. Section 20 of the Act relates to cognizance of cases by Lok Adalats. A proviso appended thereto provides that the Lok Adalat shall have no jurisdiction in respect of any case or matter relating to an offence not compoundable under any law. Section 20 of the Act relates to cognizance of cases by Lok Adalats. It provides that where in any case referred to in Clause 1(i) of sub-section (5) of Section 19, parties thereof agreed or one of the parties makes an application to the court for referring the case to Lok Adalat for settlement and if such Court is prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement or the court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalats, the court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat. A proviso appended to Section 20 provides that no case shall be referred to Lok Adalat except after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. Thereafter Section 21 of the Act grants finality to the award of Lok Adalat. 6. A perusal of the aforesaid statutory mechanism would reflect that Lok Adalats were to take cognizance of only in respect of those cases, which are pending before the court. The reference could be either on the basis of consent of the parties or one of the parties or if the Court is satisfied that the matter is such of which the cognizance could be taken by Lok Adalat, a reference could be made but no reference was to be made where only one of the parties is making application to the court or upon satisfaction of the court that the matter is fit for reference, unless a reasonable opportunity of being heard is given to the parties. 7. However, with the passage of time, it was felt that cases, which came up before Lok Adalat could not be settled amicably and ultimately they had to be sent back to the court concerned for adjudication on merits, which invariably occasioned inordinate delays. The law-makers realized that Lok Adalats, be also conferred with power of adjudication, once a mutually acceptable settlement could not be arrived at a pre-litigation stage. Thus with the aforesaid objective, Parliament in its wisdom introduced Chapter-VI-A in the Act by Act 37 of 2002 providing pre-litigation conciliation and settlement. The law-makers realized that Lok Adalats, be also conferred with power of adjudication, once a mutually acceptable settlement could not be arrived at a pre-litigation stage. Thus with the aforesaid objective, Parliament in its wisdom introduced Chapter-VI-A in the Act by Act 37 of 2002 providing pre-litigation conciliation and settlement. The statement of objects and reasons of the 2002 amendment act are as under: "(1) The Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 was enacted to constitute legal services authorities for providing (sic) 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 Court. (2) However, the major drawback in the existing scheme of organisation 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 fails 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 Service 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. It is, therefore, proposed to amend the Legal Service 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 consists (sic) of a Chairman who is or has been a District Judge or Additional District Judge or has held judicial officer (sic) 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 no 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." Section-22A reads as under: "Chapter VI-A Pre-Litigation Conciliation and Settlement 22A. Definitions.- In this Chapter and for the purposes of sections 22 and 23, unless the context otherwise requires,- (a) "Permanent Lok Adalat" means a Permanent Lok Adalat established under sub-section (1) of section 22B. Definitions.- In this Chapter and for the purposes of sections 22 and 23, unless the context otherwise requires,- (a) "Permanent Lok Adalat" means a Permanent Lok Adalat established under sub-section (1) of section 22B. (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." Section 22-B 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. Under Sub-section (2), the Permanent Lok Adalat is to be manned by a person, who is or has been, a district judge or additional district judge or has held judicial office higher in rank than that of a district judge, who shall be the Chairman of the Permanent Lok Adalat and two other persons having adequate experience in public utility service to be nominated by the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be, on the recommendation of the Central Authority or the State Authority, as the case may be. Section 22-C of the Act, which is relevant for the purpose of present case reads as under: "22C. Cognizance of cases by Permanent Lok Adalat.-(1) Any party to a dispute may, before the dispute is brought before any court, make an application to the Permanent Lok Adalat for the settlement of dispute: Provided that the Permanent Lok Adalat shall not have jurisdiction in respect of any matter relating to an offence not compoundable under any law: Provided further that the Permanent Lok Adalat shall not have jurisdiction in the matter where the value of the property in dispute exceeds ten lakh rupees: Provided also that the Central Government, may, by notification, increase the limit of ten lakh rupees specified in the second proviso in consultation with the Central Authority. (2) After an application is made under sub-section (1) to the Permanent Lok Adalat, no party to that application shall invoke jurisdiction of any court in the same dispute. (3) Where an application is made to a Permanent Lok Adalat under subsection (1), it-- (a) shall direct each party to the application to file before it a written statement, stating therein the facts and nature of dispute under the application, points or issues in such dispute and grounds relied in support of, or in opposition to, such points or issues, as the case may be, and such party may supplement such statement with any document and other evidence which such party deems appropriate in proof of such facts and grounds and shall send a copy of such statement together with a copy of such document and other evidence, if any, to each of the parties to the application; (b) may require any party to the application to file additional statement before it at any stage of the conciliation proceedings; (c) shall communicate any document or statement received by it from any party to the application to the other party, to enable such other party to present reply thereto. (4) When statement, additional statement and reply, if any, have been filed under sub-section (3), to the satisfaction of the Permanent Lok Adalat, it shall conduct conciliation proceedings between the parties to the application in such manner as it thinks appropriate taking into account the circumstances of the dispute. (5) The Permanent Lok Adalat shall, during conduct of conciliation proceedings under sub-section (4), assist the parties in their attempt to reach an amicable settlement of the dispute in an independent and impartial manner. (6) It shall be the duty of every party to the application to cooperate in good faith with the Permanent Lok Adalat in conciliation of the dispute relating to the application and to comply with the direction of the Permanent Lok Adalat to produce evidence and other related documents before it. (6) It shall be the duty of every party to the application to cooperate in good faith with the Permanent Lok Adalat in conciliation of the dispute relating to the application and to comply with the direction of the Permanent Lok Adalat to produce evidence and other related documents before it. (7) When a Permanent Lok Adalat, in the aforesaid conciliation proceedings, is of opinion that there exist elements of settlement in such proceedings which may be acceptable to the parties, it may formulate the terms of a possible settlement of the dispute and give to the parties concerned for their observations and in case the parties reach at an agreement on the settlement of the dispute, they shall sign the settlement agreement and the Permanent Lok Adalat shall pass an award in terms thereof and furnish a copy of the same to each of the parties concerned. (8) 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." 8. The salient features of Section 22C of the Act are that any party to a dispute before such a dispute is taken to the court can make an application to the Permanent Lok Adalat for settlement of a dispute, but in view of Ist proviso, Permanent Lok Adalat would not have jurisdiction in respect of any matter relating to an offence not compoundable under any law and in view of 2nd proviso, it would also have no jurisdiction, where value of the property in dispute exceeds Rs.10,00,000/-. Under sub-section (2) once an application is made under sub-section (1) of the Act to the Permanent Lok Adalat, no party to the application shall invoke the jurisdiction of any court with the same dispute. Sub-section (3) provides that upon filing of an application, Permanent Lok Adalat would direct each party to file a written statement, nature of dispute along with documents and other evidence, parties are also given liberty to file additional statements at any stage of conciliation proceedings. Sub-section (4) provides that when pleadings have been exchanged to the satisfaction of the Permanent Lok Adalat, it shall conduct conciliation between the parties. Sub-section (4) provides that when pleadings have been exchanged to the satisfaction of the Permanent Lok Adalat, it shall conduct conciliation between the parties. Sub-section (5) casts an obligation on Permanent Lok Adalat that during conciliation proceedings, it would assist the parties in their attempt to reach an amicable settlement of the dispute in an independent and impartial manner. Sub-section (6) enjoins upon a party to the application to cooperate in good faith with the Permanent Lok Adalat in conciliation of a dispute. Sub-section (7) provides that if the Permanent Lok Adalat is of the opinion that there exists an element of settlement, which may be acceptable to the parties, it may formulate the terms of a possible settlement and invite observation from the parties and in case, parties are willing to settle the dispute, they shall sign the settlement agreement and the Permanent Lok Adalat would then pass an award in terms thereof. Sub-section (8) finally provides that in the absence of any agreement under Sub-section (7), the Permanent Lok Adalat shall, if the dispute does not relate to any offence, decide the dispute. 9. Thus what the Court finds is that with a view to attain the objective of pre-litigation settlement by conciliation in respect of claims against public utility service providers, a comprehensive and an elaborate mechanism has been devised upon an application filed by the claimant before Permanent Lok Adalat, an effort is to be made after putting the other side to notice, to formulate the terms of possible settlement of dispute and then to invite observations of the parties. If observations are favourable, proposed settlement is recorded, signed by the parties and award is passed in terms thereof, else Permanent Lok Adalat would adjudicate the said dispute. 10. The Apex Court in the case of of Bar Council of India Vs. Union of India (2012) 8 SCC 243 has upheld the constitutionality of Sections 22A, 22B, 22C, 22D and 22E of the Act as inserted by Act No.37 of 2002. 11. The Apex Court in the case of Bar Council of India (supra) held that Parliament can definitely set up effective alternative institutional mechanism or make arrangements, which may be more efficacious than the ordinary mechanism of adjudication of disputes through the judicial course. 11. The Apex Court in the case of Bar Council of India (supra) held that Parliament can definitely set up effective alternative institutional mechanism or make arrangements, which may be more efficacious than the ordinary mechanism of adjudication of disputes through the judicial course. Such institutional mechanism or arrangements by no stretch of imagination can be set up contrary to the constitutional scheme or against the rule of law. The establishment of Permanent Lok Adalats and conferring them jurisdiction up to a specified pecuniary limit in respect of one or more public utility services as defined in Section 22A (b) before the dispute is brought before any Court by any party to the dispute is not anathema to the rule of law. Instead of ordinary civil courts, if other institutional mechanisms are set up or arrangements are made by Parliament with an adjudicatory power, in our view, such institutional mechanisms or arrangements cannot be faulted on the ground of arbitrariness or irrationality. The 1987 Act as amended by the 2002 Amending Act are in addition to and not in derogation of the fora provided under various statutes and the same has been held to complimentary to Section-89 of Code of Civil Procedure by the Apex Court in the case of S.N. Pandey vs. Union of India & another, (2012) 8 SCC 261. No doubt, Motor Accident Claims Tribunals are Tribunals constituted under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which are manned essentially by a District Judge, who also conducts regular civil and criminal matters. Thus, in view of the aforesaid decision in Bar Council of India (supra), it would always be open for a claimant to approach the Permanent Lok Adalat for redressal of his grievance, provided the claim relates to public utility service and the same is not barred under the provisions of the 1987 Act. Thus in view of the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court in the case of Bar Council of India (supra) law laid down by the Chhattisgarh High Court in the case of Dasru Patel (supra) does not lay down correct law. 12. Learned counsel for petitioner could not dispute that the claim before the Permanent Lok Adalat was not in respect of a public utility service and that the claim was beyond the pecuniary limit. 12. Learned counsel for petitioner could not dispute that the claim before the Permanent Lok Adalat was not in respect of a public utility service and that the claim was beyond the pecuniary limit. Thus the proceedings were maintainable at a pre-litigation stage before the Permanent Lok Adalats, but as after notice to respondents, they were unable to settle the dispute by way of conciliation, then by operation of law right was conferred on the Permanent Lok Adalat to adjudicate the dispute on merits. It is not the requirement of law that for adjudication, a fresh consent is to be obtained, as that would be defeating the very purpose and object of the Amending Act, which was to ensure speedy disposal of cases relating to public utility service at a pre-litigation stage in the spirit of conciliation, failing which an adjudication on merits was the only logical consequence. 13. However, the Apex Court in the case of Ajay Sinha (supra) sounded a word of caution and held that the Permanent Lok Adalat must exercise its power with due care and caution and it must not give an impression to any of the disputants that from the very beginning, it has an adjudicatory role to play in relation to its jurisdiction without going into the statutory provisions and restrictions imposed thereunder. 14. However, before parting with the case, this Court would like to comment on the working of the Permanent Lok Adalats as has been observed in the recent past while this Court was vested with the jurisdiction to hear such matters. Invariably all cases which came up before this Court, the Court found that even though Sub-section (5) and Sub-section (6) of Section-22C of the Act casts an obligation upon the Permanent Lok Adalat to work out a settlement in the course of conciliation proceedings and then in terms of sub-section (7) form an opinion that there exists element of settlement in such proceedings, which may be acceptable to the parties, it may formulate term of possible settlement, invite observations from the parties concerned. But it appears that Permanent Lok Adalats, in the teeth of said statutory provisions has been only reciting that "conciliation attempted but failed" before proceeding to adjudicate the issue on merits. But it appears that Permanent Lok Adalats, in the teeth of said statutory provisions has been only reciting that "conciliation attempted but failed" before proceeding to adjudicate the issue on merits. There is no material invariably as to when this conciliation was resorted to, in what manner and what terms of settlement were formulated so as to invite comments of the parties concerned. This is neither the spirit of the provision nor could be used as a subterfuge to rope in a public utility service provider. It is not a formality, which is to be mechanically discharged. The record must reflect that a bonafide and sincere attempt was put in to work out a possible settlement including the framing of a possible settlement and only when proposed settlement does not get a desired response, then alone Permanent Lok Adalat should proceed to adjudicate on merits, whenever a plea of lack of jurisdiction is raised, it must be appropriately dealt with. It be not lost sight of that in terms of sub-section (6) of Section 22 of the Act, it is the duty of every party to the application to cooperate in good faith with the Permanent Lok Adalat in conciliation of the dispute, as Chapter VI A of the Act is complimentary to Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 15. No other plea is urged. 16. The writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed. No order as to costs. 17. Let a copy of this order be placed by the Registrar General before the Chairman, U.P. State Legal Services Authority, Lucknow?