JUDGMENT : Biswanath Rath, J. This writ petition has been filed challenging the judgment and award dated 07.01.2015 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat (PUS) Bolangir-Sonepur, Bolangir in PLA Case No. 312 of 2013. 2. Short background involved in the case is that the PLA Case No.312 of 2013 was instituted by one Prasanta Kumar Prusty the opposite party herein raising a claim against the Insurance Company for a sum of Rs.3,16,040/-along with interest @ of 12% per annum with a further prayer to pay a sum of Rs.25,000 as compensation towards mental agony suffered by him. 3. Short background involved in the case is that the opposite party was the registered owner of the Indigo Car bearing No.OR-03-F-5922 and the vehicle was duly insured with the respondent with a comprehensive insurance policy involving 3rd party risk issued by the petitioner under the private car package vide policy no.OG-112403-1801-00006327. It is claimed that the Insurance Policy was valid from 31.01.2011, 00.00 (hrs.) to 30.01.2012, midnight. It is averred that on 02.12.2011 while the vehicle was proceeding towards Kantabanji on S.H.-42 being driven by Chaitan Pradhan, on the way at about 10.45 p.m. near Tanla crossing, a group of stray cattle rushed towards it, while the driver tried to save the lives of the cattle, the vehicle went out of his control and capsized by the side of the road causing extensive damage to the vehicle affecting its body and mechanical system of the engine. This fact was brought to the notice of the petitioner Insurance Company. A survey on the spot was also conducted for assessment of loss caused to the vehicle, whereafter the opposite party shifted the vehicle to one Sonu-Motors in the District of Bolangir for necessary repairing. The petitioner-respondent No.2 registered the claim vide claim no.OC-12-2403-1801-00001697 on 5.12.2011. Basing upon the estimated expenditure assessed by the Sonu-Motors, the vehicle was repaired at a sum of Rs.3,16,040/-. It is alleged that even after submission of the final papers to the petitioner through his surveyor, the petitioner did not settle the claim and finally by letter dated 4.01.2014 denied the claim and for which, the claimants approached the Permanent Lok Adalat vide P.L.A. Case No.312 of 2013. It is alleged that even after submission of the final papers to the petitioner through his surveyor, the petitioner did not settle the claim and finally by letter dated 4.01.2014 denied the claim and for which, the claimants approached the Permanent Lok Adalat vide P.L.A. Case No.312 of 2013. Upon receipt of notice in the P.L.A. Case No.312 of 2013 the petitioner entered its appearance and filed its written statement denying the liability stating therein that though the vehicle No. OR-03-F-5922 was insured vide policy no.OG-112403-1801-00006327 and it was valid from 31.01.2011, 00.00 (hrs.) to 30.01.2012, midnight subject to the terms and conditions stated therein, but on perusal of the documents the petitioner found that the vehicle was sold to one Dhiraj Kumar Jain on 25.10.2011 much prior to the accident through a deed of sale and the possession of the vehicle was also handed over by Sri Prasanta Kumar Prusty to the said Dhiraj Kumar Jain on the same date. Petitioner thus claimed that the vehicle met with accident while remaining in custody of the said Dhiraj Kumar Jain. The petitioner thus submitted that the claim was made on concealment of the above facts and it is for the involvement of a deed of sale of the vehicle with right to use the vehicle by the purchaser and in absence of transfer of the ownership. The petitioner objected the entitlement of the opposite parties based on the policy condition particularly involving the petitioner and accordingly, prayed for dismissal of the claim application. 4. Both the parties filed their respective affidavit of evidence. The affidavit disclosed the involvement of a sale deed concerning the particular vehicle to one Dhiraj Kumar Jain on 25.10.2011. The Permanent Lok Adalat on scan of the materials available on record and after perusal of the agreement for sell, came to hold that the allegation that there is a transaction involving the vehicle by virtue of the sale deed, is not correct rather the documentation is an agreement for sell with specific condition in the agreement that in the event the said Dhiraj Kumar Jain fails to fulfill the conditions, the opposite parties will not execute the sale deeds alienating the vehicle in question and thus, came to the conclusion that the opposite party was the rightful owner of the vehicle at the time of accident. It is after holding that the opposite party continued as the owner of the vehicle on the date of accident, proceeded for taking into consideration the expenditures made for the purpose by the opposite party involving the repairing of the vehicle and came to hold that the claimant is entitled to Rs.2,84,436/- towards the claim. While refusing the claims on the other heads the Permanent Lok Adalat directed for release of the compensation amount indicated hereinabove in favour of the opposite party within two months with further direction that failure in paying the amount within the time stipulation, the compensation amount shall carry 8% interest per annum till its realization. 5. Petitioner challenged the impugned judgment passed by the learned Permanent Lok Adalat on the premises that since the vehicle was under the custody of one Dhiraj Kumar Jain on 25.10.2011, there is no liability on the Insurance Company. Referring to the Sections 4 & 5 of the Sales of Goods Act, 1930, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the deed for agreement for sale need not require any registration and therefore, the Permanent Lok Adalat declining to entertain the objection of the petitioner on the basis of no registration of agreement of sale is erroneous. Petitioner-company also contended that since the claimant’s claim of ownership was not conclusive for existence of a Chuktinama the claimant ought to have gone for establishing his case leading evidence. Referring to the decisions as reported in 2000 (1) T.A.C 92 (SC) (2) 2013 (2) CPJ 122 (NC) (3) 1998 (1) TAC 42 (SC) (4) 2012 (4) CPJ 639 (NC) (5) AIR 1996 SC 586 Sri G.P. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner claimed that for the decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court dealing with such matter favouring the petitioners, the award should be interfered with and set aside. 6. Learned counsel for the contesting opposite party while objecting the claims made by the petitioner, challenging the impugned award submitted that there is only an agreement for sell between the petitioner and Dhiraj Kumar Jain on the date of accident and in transfer of ownership of the vehicle, the opposite party continued to be the owner of the vehicle on the date of accident and under the circumstance, claimed that there is no infirmity in the impugned award leaving any scope for interfering in the same. 7. 7. Considering the rival contentions of the parties, this Court finds, the undisputed fact remain here is that the appellant in the P.L.A case and the opposite party herein was the registered owner of the Indigo C.S. motor car bearing registration No. No. OR-03-F-5922 and the vehicle was duly insured with the respondent therein and the petitioner herein under the private car package policy vide policy No. no.OG-112403-1801-00006327. The Insurance policy was also valid from 31.01.2011, 00.00 (hrs.) to 30.01.2012, mid-night. The further admitted fact reveals, when the vehicle bearing the aforesaid registration No.OR-03-F-5922 was proceeding towards Kantabanji on S.H.-42 being driven by Chaitan Pradhan, on the way at 10.45 p.m. near Tanla crossing, a group of stray cattle rushed towards it, though the driver of the vehicle wanted to save the lives of the cattle, but the vehicle went out of his control and capsized by the side of the road causing extensive damage to the vehicle. This fact was brought to the notice of the Insurance Company. A surveyor was deputed for assessment of the loss. The loss was assessed and after which the vehicle was shifted to the one Sonu-Motors, Bolangir for necessary repairing. Consequent upon completion of repairing the opposite parties submitted the relevant papers for repudiation of the loss by the petitioner. 8. On asking of the Permanent Lok Adalat, both the parties filed their respective affidavit of evidence one each by the respective parties. In its evidence on affidavit the insurance company had a categoric objection to the entitlement of the petitioner on the premises that the owner of the vehicle having entered into an agreement (Chuktinama) with one Dhiraj Kumar Jain on 25.10.2011 for sell of the vehicle involved and having transferred the vehicle to the possession of the said Dhiraj Kumar Jain before the effected date by enclosing therein the Xerox copy of the agreement executed between the above parties being sworn before the Notary Public at Kantabanji. The Insurance Company thus claimed that for the involvement of an agreement between the parties and for the alienation of the vehicle in favour of the 3rd party and for the clear disclosure in the agreement in the matter of handing over of the vehicle from the date of agreement and for the clear condition contained in the agreement to the effect that the Dhiraj Kumar Jain the transferee will be held responsible on account of loss of the vehicle in accident and for the specific condition contained therein at clause 5 of the agreement that from the date of agreement the second party will be responsible for the dues to the R.T.O. involving any case involved therein, it appears, there is in fact a transfer of the vehicle and the vehicle since met with an accident while remaining in custody of the second party Sri Dhiraj Kumar Jain, insurance company claimed to have no liability. Further even though a particular person was driving the vehicle on the date the opposite party did not make any endeavour to bring as to whom the driver belong with proof of payment etc. 9. Considering the rival contentions of the parties and on perusal of the impugned award and documents placed herein, this Court finds, even though both the parties have filed affidavit of evidence and more particularly the Insurance Company having filed a copy of agreement indicated hereinabove, parties were desired to enter into cross examination to establish their respective case particularly when a financial claim is involved in a dispute of this nature. Looking to the provision contained in Section 22(D) & 22(E) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, this Court finds, the Permanent Lok Adalat established under this Act is required to pass the award either on merit or in terms of a settlement agreement. Even though the provision contained in the C.P.C and the provision contained in the Indian Evidence Act cannot bind the proceedings in the P.L.A yet but for requirements of passing an award on merit bare minimum requirement establishing the case is the necessity particularly when the claim of the first party in the proceeding is denied with certainty, taking help of an agreement existing on the relevant point of time establishing transfer of the case, for the language contained in the Chuktinama-agreement. Taking cue from the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case in between M/s. Complete Insulations (P) Ltd. v. New India Assurance Company Ltd. as reported in AIR 1996 SC 586 particularly the observation of the Hon’ble Apex Court in paragraph No.10 of the said decision, for the existence of an agreement between the insurer and the transferee specifically indicating therein, the transfer of the vehicle in favour of the transferee upon receipt of amount further with a rider the transferee will be responsible for the loss and accident to the vehicle and further for the specific clause contained in the agreement relied on indicating the liability in respect of non-registration etc. this Court finds, the Permanent Lok Adalat should have asked the parties in contest to enter into cross examination to satisfy their respective case. 10. Taking into consideration the citation cited on behalf of the opposite party, for the specific observation of this Court made hereinabove and for the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court indicated in paragraph No.9 hereinabove, this Court finds force in the submission of Sri G.P. Dutta, learned counsel. Looking to the decision cited by the opposite party, this Court finds, none of the decision cited by the opposite parties is relevant for the purpose. 11. For the reasons assigned hereinabove, this Court has no hesitation to interfere with the impugned awards granted by the Permanent Lok Adalat and thus, while setting aside the award granted by the Permanent Lok Adalat vide Annexure-1, but however, keeping in view that there need an effective adjudication of the matter involved, remands the P.L.A Case No.312 of 2013 to the Permanent Lok Adalat (PUS), Bolangir-Sonepur for fresh adjudication of the matter within three months hence but after entering into additional evidence, cross examination and fresh hearing. 12. The writ petition succeeds, but however with an order of remand. In the circumstances, there is no order as to cost.