JUDGMENT : BISWANATH RATH, J. 1. For the common dispute involved in all these writ petitions and for the common prayer made therein, a common argument has been advanced by the counsel for both the sides. Considering commonness in the above proceedings, this Court feels it appropriate to decide all the matters by this common judgment. Incidentally writ petitions also involve a common award involving four independent disputes but of similar nature. 2. All the writ petitions involve challenge to the award dated 10.01.2013 passed by the learned Permanent Lok Adalat (PUS), Keonjhar in PLA Case Nos.16 of 2012, 17 of 2012, 20 of 2012 and 21 of 2012. 3. Short background involved in the cases involved herein is that Kashyap Mahanta S/o-late Raghunath Mahanta, Priyadarsini Mahanta, W/o-late Mitrabhanu Mahanta, Sanjulata Mahanta W/o-Sushil Kumar Mahanta and Ramachandra Mahanta, S/o-late Akura Mahanta belong to the village Budhikapudi, P.S.-Turumunga, Dist.-Keonjhar in the State of Odisha attended a meeting organized by the Insurance Advisor one Damayanti Mahanta of village Kamargoda-Badahal, P.O.-Keonjhar, P.S./Town-Dist.-Keonjhar in the matter of explaining a policy of S.B.I. Life Insurance. One Asit Kumar Swain respondent no.2 in all the P.L.A cases functioning as the Unit Manager of S.B.I. Life Insurance Company also attended the meeting. It is alleged that both the persons named hereinabove persuaded the petitioners involved in all the writ petitions to take advantage of the scheme and accordingly, Kashyap Mahanta deposited premium of Rs.50,000/-, Priyadarsini Mahanta deposited premium of Rs.75,000/-, Sanjulata Mahanta deposited premium of Rs.1,00,000/-and Ramachandra Mahanta deposited premium of Rs.1,00,000/-. Priyadarsini Mahanta and Kashyap Mahanta were issued with two different receipts of deposits in token of premium deposited with said Asit Kumar Swain with an assurance of releasing of the policy bond within one or two months. Similarly, Sanjulata Mahanta and Ramachandra Mahanta were also issued with two different receipts for deposit of Rs.1,00,000/-each with assurance of releasing the policy bond also within same period. It is alleged that after several request, no policy certificate/bond was received by the applicants Kashyap Mahanta and Priyadarsini Mahanta, for which, they were constrained to bring this aspect of the notice of the Branch Sales Manager namely Sanjeev Sarada and the Insurance Advisor namely Damayanti Mahanta. On repeated approach Sanjulata Mahanta and Ramachandra Mahanta were supplied with two different policies/bonds. On enquiry they found that the policy bonds are not genuine. On repeated approach Sanjulata Mahanta and Ramachandra Mahanta were supplied with two different policies/bonds. On enquiry they found that the policy bonds are not genuine. It is at this stage they compelled to approach the Area Sales Manager and also the Regional Director of the S.B.I. Life Insurance Company at least to refund their premium involved. For no response from the competent authorities, the petitioners had approached the Permanent Lok Adalat with common prayer for a direction to the Insurance Company to refund the premium amount deposited by each of them along with interest. As a result, four P.L.A Cases were registered vide P.L.A Case Nos.16 of 2012, 17 of 2012, 20 of 2012 and 21 of 2012. 4. Upon notice in all the matters, the respondent Nos.1 & 3 therein entered appearance and filed their written statement inter alia contending therein that there is no authorization by the Insurance Company to the said Asit Kumar Swain who have allegedly collected the premium amount from the applicants therein, to receive premium in shape of cash by issuing receipts and finding, misappropriation of money the Insurance Company has already lodged an F.I.R before the C.I.D.(C.B.), Orissa, Cuttack for taking cognizance against both of them under Section 467/468/409/420/406 of I.P.C. The Insurance Company also challenged the jurisdiction of the Permanent Lok Adalat in entertaining such dispute. Conciliation being failed, the matters were heard together. The premium receipts were marked as Exts.1 & 2 involving P.L.A Case Nos.16 of 2012 and 17 of 2012 but no receipts were exhibited in proof of the deposit in P.L.A Case Nos.20 of 2012 & 21 of 2012 rather the claimants therein filed Insurance policies served on each of them, which are marked as Exts.3 & 4 respectively. Respondents 1 & 3 therein i.e. the present petitioners referring to the conditions in the proposal form appended here as Annexure-2 submitted that not only the said Asit Kumar Swain was not authorized to receive any such payment but looking to the systems for deposit of premium, it also appears that there is a clear stipulation not to authorize anybody to collect cash from its customer. For the unauthorized transaction by the incompetent/unauthorized person, the Insurance Company seriously objected the claim of the claimants therein and prayed for rejection of the plaints. For the unauthorized transaction by the incompetent/unauthorized person, the Insurance Company seriously objected the claim of the claimants therein and prayed for rejection of the plaints. Considering the rival contentions of the parties and documents available therein as well as the decision relied upon by the respective parties, the Permanent Lok Adalat vide its common award dated 10.01.2013 allowed the claim concerning the claimants and directed the respondent no.1 and respondent no.2 (SBI Life Insurance Company Limited and Asit Kumar Swain) are jointly and severally liable to refund the premium deposits of Rs.50,000/-to the claimant i.e. Kashyap Mahanta and Rs.75,000/-to Priyadarsini Mahanta, Rs.1,00,000/-each to Sanjulata Mahanta and Ramachandra Mahanta alongwith 6% annual interest from the date of receipt of the premium within one month of the award. 5. Assailing the common award, by filing four writ petitions, the Insurance Company while reiterating its stand taken before the Permanent Lok Adalat referring to the condition contained in the clause-9 at page 18 of the brief submitted that the receipt of cash involving the life insurance claim of the company from the customer is wholly impermissible. Similarly, referring to the condition contained in the clause 4.2, Sri Udgata, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that looking to the details of the premium remittance, the receipt of draft and cheque is only permissible and there is no scope for receiving the cash. Similarly looking to the clause contained in clause 5 of the proposal appearing at page 21 of the brief, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that for the mode of payment of renewal of the premium through the modes mentioned therein, there is no scope for receiving the cash at any stage of the policy even. Similarly looking to the clause contained in clause 5 of the proposal appearing at page 21 of the brief, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that for the mode of payment of renewal of the premium through the modes mentioned therein, there is no scope for receiving the cash at any stage of the policy even. Further, taking this Court to the format of acknowledgement at page 26 of the brief, learned counsel for the petitioner again contended that there is clear restriction in the matter of payment of premium through cash by the S.B.I. Life Insurance Company Ltd. Further referring to a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in a case in between Further referring to a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case in between State Bank of India vs. Smt. Shyama Devi, as reported in AIR 1978 (SC) 1263 specifically taking reliance of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in paragraph Nos.41 & 42 contended that the case of the petitioner’s is squarely covered by the said decision and thus requested for allowing the writ petition thereby setting aside the awards involved therein. 6. Sri Mund, learned counsel for the opposite party No.1 in all the writ petitions while reiterating their stand taken before the Permanent Lok Adalat (PUS) to justify their case submitted that since the amount has been received by the persons none else than the employee and the Advisor of the Insurance Company, it becomes clear that the petitioners are duty bound to discharge their responsibility and they cannot deny their responsibility on the premises of some mere technicalities in the manner of receipt of amount, grant of receipts and the grant of alleged fake policy bonds as a employer and master of the establishment. Sri Mund, claimed that the vicarious liability of the master does not dependent on the lawful or unlawful nature of the acts to the service involved therein and the master would be liable for such alleged act. Mere filing of F.I.R on the allegation of misappropriation of money cannot deprive the benefit to the claimants being real sufferers. Sri Mund, claimed that the vicarious liability of the master does not dependent on the lawful or unlawful nature of the acts to the service involved therein and the master would be liable for such alleged act. Mere filing of F.I.R on the allegation of misappropriation of money cannot deprive the benefit to the claimants being real sufferers. Relying upon some decisions as reported in AIR 1987(P&H)56(F.B), 2011 (Vol.7) SCC 463, AIR 2008 (SC) 2398 , learned counsel for the private opposite party No.1 in all the writ petitions submitted that the petitioners have no case and there is absolutely no infirmity in the award granted by the learned Permanent Lok Adalat (PUS) requiring any interference of this Court in the same. 7. Considering the rival contentions of the parties, this Court finds, the admitted fact involved in the case is that on being satisfied with the approach made by the Damayanti Mahanta, the Insurance Advisor and Asit Kumar Swain, Unit Manager of S.B.I. Life Insurance Company all the claimants i.e. the private opposite party No.1 involved herein have deposited the premium of Rs.50,000/-, Rs.75,000/-Rs.1,00,000/-and Rs.1,00,000/-each in cash respectively. Two of the claimants have submitted cash receipt in proof of receipt of premium by the above two person in order to avail the benefit of the Insurance claim whereas two other claimants could be able to file the bond received by each of them through the above persons. Now coming to consider the clause contained in the proposal form involving S.B.I. Life-Smart performer find place as Ext. ‘C’ in the trial proceeding exhibited at the instance of the respondent Nos.1 & 2 therein and the petitioners herein appending here the same as Annexure-2, this Court finds, the conditions at clause-8 & 9 of the proposal reads as follows: Instructions for filling up Proposal Form xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx “8. The Cheque/DD should be issued in favour of “SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd.-Proposal Form No._______” 9. SBI Life branches and its sales team are not authorized to collect cash from its customers.” For the above premises, it leaves no doubt that the mode of deposit is not only by way of cheque/DD but also in favour of the S.B.I. Life Insurance Company Ltd. Above further makes it clear that there is a clear bar from collecting cash from the customers. The case record clearly discloses the mode of payment by the opposite party No.1 in the writ petition through by way of cash, which is wholly impermissible. Now looking to the clause 4.2 under the heading details of premium remittance in the very same proposal form find place Ext. C, and again filed here as Annexure2, from the disclosures at page 21 of the writ petition vide W.P.(C) No.2732 of 2013, it appears, the same again restricts receipt of draft/cheque or remittance by Electronic fund transfer through State Bank Group (SBG) Branch provided therein. 8. For the above, it also become clear that the mode of payment is not only either through draft or cheque but even also through electronic fund transfer system and with clear restriction that no receipt of cash is permissible involving the Insurance Policy of the petitioner No.1. Similarly, looking to the acknowledgment to be issued in receipt of payment from the customers as appearing at page 26 of the writ petition a part of the Ext. ‘C’ filed before the authority below, it appears, the same has also a clear stipulation at clause 2 indicating therein that the cash payments are not accepted by the S.B.I. Life Insurance Company Ltd. For the admission by each of the claimants the payment is made by way of cash, mode of payment is absolutely contrary to the conditions contained in the proposal involved in the policy. For any lapses therein the petitioner No.1 cannot be held responsible. It may be a matter in between the claimants and the persons who have received the cash with false assurance. The official / sales agents no doubt have been authorized to receive the premium but through the specific mode prescribed therein. Any transaction through the mode prescribed therein in the matter of obtaining a policy bond becomes invalid and no responsibility can be attributed to the petitioners in such matters. Further perusal of the evidence available on record, the documents marked therein and the pleadings made therein by both the parties involving PLA cases this Court finds, the claimant i.e. the private opposite party No.1 in each of the case have failed in establishing the genuineness of receipt as well as the policy bonds. Further perusal of the evidence available on record, the documents marked therein and the pleadings made therein by both the parties involving PLA cases this Court finds, the claimant i.e. the private opposite party No.1 in each of the case have failed in establishing the genuineness of receipt as well as the policy bonds. From the discussion made by the Chairperson of the Permanent Lok Adalat (PUS), this Court finds, the Permanent Lok Adalat has failed in appreciating the pleadings, evidence available on record and also failed in appreciating the materials available on record through the documents marked as exhibits in the proceeding particularly failing in appreciating the clear restrictions therein in the Exhibit 3 again appearing here as Annexure-2 and thus, the finding and observation of the authority below not only becomes bad in law but it also appears, the findings therein remain contrary to the materials available on record. 9. Now coming to scan the citations referred by both the parties, this Court finds, for change of the facts and other aspects involving the case at hand, the citations at the instance of the private opposite party are wholly inapplicable to the present proceeding. So far as the decision cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners as reported in AIR 1978 (SC) 1263 and for the observations made in paragraph Nos.41 & 42 of the said decision, this Court finds, the decision has a direct application to the petitioners’ case. 10. For the discussions, findings and the law of the land through AIR 1978 (SC) 1263 , this Court finds, the impugned order at Annexure-4 in all the writ petitions remain unsustainable and accordingly, while interfering in the same, this Court sets aside the award dated 10.01.2013 passed by the learned Permanent Lok Adalat (PUS), Keonjhar in PLA Case Nos.16 of 2012, 17 of 2012, 20 of 2012 and 21 of 2012 and allows the writ petitions. 11. The writ petitions succeed. But however in the circumstances, there is no order as to cost.