ORDER : C. Praveen Kumar, J. 1. Assailing the Order dated 23.03.2020 in PLAC No. 226 of 2018 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat for Public Utility Services, Kadapa, the present Writ Petition is filed. 2. Originally the Claimant/ Respondent No. 2 herein filed PLAC No. 226 of 2018 stating that her husband, by name, N. Nagi Reddy, during his life time took a policy dated 24.04.2017 on his life from the HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Limited, for a sum of Rs.50,00,000/-. The certificate bearing No. 19111262 was issued to N. Nagi Reddy, showing the Claimant/Respondent No.2 herein, who is his wife, as a ‘Nominee’ in the said policy. 3. On 16.11.2017 Sri. N. Nagi Reddy died of heart attack. The Claimant/Respondent No.2 herein approached the Insurance Company on 02.01.2018 and submitted her claim form with a request to release the amount payable under the policy. The said claim was repudiated on the ground that Nagi Reddy did not disclose the policies taken from other insurance companies, in the relevant column of the proposal form submitted by him to the Insurance Company. 4. Aggrieved by the same, the Claimant/Respondent No.2 herein approached the Permanent Lok Adalat, Kadapa, by filing a claim under Section 22A(b) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 [for short ‘the Act’]. By an Order dated 15.11.2018, an Award came to be passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat at Kadapa, directing the Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs.50,00,000/-with interest at the rate of 16% per annum to the 2nd Respondent-nominee towards the claim under the said policy. Challenging the same, Writ Petition No.5766 of 2019 was filed before this court. 5. The issues that fell for consideration in the said writ petition are: (1) whether the Lok Adalat has jurisdiction to decide the dispute on merits; (2) whether the Insurance Company, who did not contest the dispute before Lok Adalat, can question the award by invoking the jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India; (3) whether the Insurance Company can question the ex parte award passed by the Lok Adalat; and (4) whether the said award was passed without giving an opportunity to the Insurance Company to contest the same. 6. 6. By an Order dated 08.11.2019, this Court held that the Permanent Lok Adalat had the jurisdiction to decide the dispute on merits; (2) as the award passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat is final and that no appeal lies against it, held that the Insurance Company can challenge the award by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court; (3) it was also held that, though an ex parte award was passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, the Insurance Company, if aggrieved by the order on account of manifest error of law, can question the same by filing a Writ Petition; (4) as the plea relating to repudiation of claim being vital in nature, and as it goes to the root of the matter, the court set-aside the Award and remanded the matter to the Permanent Lok Adalat, Kadapa, for fresh adjudication, after giving an opportunity to the Insurance Company to contest the matter by adducing evidence in support of repudiation of the claim under Section 45 of the Insurance Act. Accordingly, the court passed the following Order, which reads as under: “Therefore, the Writ Petition is allowed setting aside the impugned Award dated 15.11.2018 of the Permanent Lok Adalat, Kadapa, passed in PLAC No.226 of 2018 on costs of Rs.30,000/-(Rupees Thirty thousand only) payable to the nominee, 2nd respondent-claimant. The matter is remanded to the Permanent Lok Adalat, Kadapa, for fresh adjudication. The Permanent Lok Adalat, Kadapa, shall afford an opportunity to the Insurance Company to contest the lis and adduce evidence in support of its contention. If the claimant intends to adduce any rebuttal evidence, opportunity to adduce evidence is to be given to her also and thereafter decide the dispute according to law. We make it clear that we have not decided anything on fact or merit. We have only dealt with legal position. Therefore, in deciding the said dispute, the Permanent Lok Adalat shall not be swayed away by any of the observations made by us incidentally in this Writ Petition and it shall independently consider the evidence adduced by both the parties and adjudicate the dispute independently in accordance with law.” 7. We have only dealt with legal position. Therefore, in deciding the said dispute, the Permanent Lok Adalat shall not be swayed away by any of the observations made by us incidentally in this Writ Petition and it shall independently consider the evidence adduced by both the parties and adjudicate the dispute independently in accordance with law.” 7. Pursuant to the remand, the matter was again dealt with by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Kadapa, and passed an Award dated 23.03.2020, directing the Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs.50,00,000/-towards claim amount under the Policy bearing No. 19111262 with interest @ 16% per annum from the date of death of the policy holder i.e., 16.11.2017 till the date of realization of the said amount. Challenging the same, the present Writ Petition came to be filed. 8. Ms. Ch. Vedavani, counsel appearing for the Writ Petitioners –Insurance Company mainly submits that the order came to be passed without giving an opportunity to the Writ Petitioners to contest the matter. According to her, no notice was served on the 1st Petitioner herein and though the notice was served on the 2nd Petitioner but the same was not informed by the concerned employee, against whom action has also been initiated. It is further pleaded that the counsel for the Respondent No.2 herein having received the amounts on behalf of Respondent No. 2 and having filed a memo stating that he would not press E.P. No. 101 of 2019, proceeded with the award proceedings and obtained an order behind the back. It is further pleaded that passing of an award without giving an opportunity to adduce evidence, as directed in the earlier round of litigation, is bad in law. 9. On the other hand, Mr. L.J. Veera Reddy, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 2 herein, opposed the same contending that the very same plea was taken in the earlier round of litigation also, but this court remanded the matter back, giving an opportunity to the Insurance Company to contest the matter, as the amount involved is on a higher side. According to him, notices were served on both the Writ Petitioners herein, in PLAC, and in spite of the same, they did not contest the matter. According to him, notices were served on both the Writ Petitioners herein, in PLAC, and in spite of the same, they did not contest the matter. The counsel further pleads that as the earlier order came to be passed at the instance of the Writ Petitioners, they should have been more vigilant and careful in attending the proceedings before the Lok Adalat, instead of complaining that no notices were served on them. The Counsel would submit that as the matter was remanded at the instance of Writ Petitioners, the question of pleading ignorance of the proceedings would not arise. 10. Mr. S. Lakshminarayana Reddy, counsel appearing for Respondent No. 1 submits that the argument of the learned counsel for the Petitioners that the Lok Adalat erred in passing the order on 23.03.2020 even after declaration of lockdown is incorrect. According to him, the lockdown was declared on the evening of 23.03.2020 and, as such, it cannot be said that the order came to be passed when the Lok Adalat was ordered to be closed. He further pleads that the argument of the learned counsel for the Writ Petitioners that everything happened on 23.03.2020 itself is also incorrect. On the other hand, he pleads that the averments in the Writ Petition itself disclose that after remand, the matter underwent number of adjournments and as the Writ Petitioners failed to appear before the court, the Permanent Lok Adalat passed the order based on the material available on record. 11. From a perusal of the material available on record, it is clear that there was an earlier round of litigation between the very same parties and in respect of the very same claim, which lead to filing of W.P. No. 5776 of 2019. Though various grounds came to be raised, the issue as to the jurisdiction of the Permanent Lok Adalat to decide the case, was answered against the Insurance Company. But, however, a finding on the maintainability of writ petition challenging the award under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, was held in favor of the Writ Petitioners/ Insurance Company. 12. Insofar as the issue relating to existence of other polices and non-disclosure of such information in the form submitted by N. Nagi Reddy at the time of taking the insurance policy, the same were directed to be dealt with on remand. 12. Insofar as the issue relating to existence of other polices and non-disclosure of such information in the form submitted by N. Nagi Reddy at the time of taking the insurance policy, the same were directed to be dealt with on remand. A reading of the operative portion of the order would show that the matter was remanded to Permanent Lok Adalat, with a direction to give an opportunity to the Insurance Company to contest the lis and adduce evidence in support of its contention. The Claimant/Respondent No. 2 herein was also given liberty to adduce rebuttal evidence, if any. It was further held that the Permanent Lok Adalat should not be swayed by any of the observations made by the Bench in the said writ petition and that it shall independently consider the evidence adduced by both the parties and adjudicate the disputes independently in accordance with law. 13. As stated earlier, the main stem of the argument in this round of litigation is that no notice was served on the 1st Petitioner herein and insofar as service of notice on 2nd Petitioner is concerned, it is said that the employee of the Petitioners company who received the notice failed to inform the Writ Petitioners. A perusal of the order shows that notice was in fact served on both the Writ Petitioners and inspite of the same none appeared before the Lok Adalat. It would be appropriate to extract the same, which reads as under: “In obedience of the directions of the Hon’ble High Court in the above referred order this authority issued notice by RP sent to both side parties for further hearing in the matter for purpose of fresh adjudication by giving opportunity to the respondent insurance company to contest the lis and adduce evidence in support of his contention. In spite of service of notice the respondents 1 and 2 are called absent but the advocate for the petitioner is present and sought time for further hearing. Admittedly the insurance company did not respond to the notice issued by this authority and due to non appearance on behalf of the insurance company before the Permanent Lok Adalat, in the absence of the respondents no settlement could be arrived between both the parties to the lis. Admittedly the insurance company did not respond to the notice issued by this authority and due to non appearance on behalf of the insurance company before the Permanent Lok Adalat, in the absence of the respondents no settlement could be arrived between both the parties to the lis. So this authority proceeded to decide the dispute on merits and adjudicate the dispute as contemplated U/s. 22(C)8 r/w 22(D) of APLSA Act. Once again without any valid reason the respondent insurance company failed to appear before the PLA in response to the notice issued and deliberately did not produce the evidence in support of their contention that the life assured deliberately withheld the details relating to alleged existing policy in the proposal form.” 14. From the above, it is very clear that like in the earlier round of litigation, the Writ Petitioners did not respond to the notice issued by the Permanent Lok Adalat. It is very much evident from the order that notices were in fact issued to both the Writ Petitioners and neither of them responded, in spite of service of the same. Hence, the argument of the learned counsel for the Writ Petitioners that no notice was served on them cannot be accepted. 15. The learned counsel for the Writ Petitioners tried to contend that they were not aware of the proceedings before the Lok Adalat pursuant to the remand made. But it is to be noted that the order of remand came to be passed by the High Court at the instance of the present Writ Petitioners only. Therefore, pleading ignorance about those proceedings before the Permanent Lok Adalat cannot be accepted. When stakes involved are high, definitely, the Writ Petitioners ought to have been more vigilant in knowing the proceedings before the Lok Adalat, more so, when a E.P. was filed by the Claimant/Respondent N. 2 herein. At any rate, it is admitted by the Petitioners that the 2nd Respondent before PLA had received notice. 16. The next ground urged by the learned counsel for the Writ Petitioners is that without giving any opportunity to adduce the evidence, the Lok Adalat decided the matter basing on the evidence of PW1 and documents marked in the earlier round of litigation. There is nothing wrong in deciding the matter based on evidence adduced in the earlier round of litigation. There is nothing wrong in deciding the matter based on evidence adduced in the earlier round of litigation. Things would have been different had the Writ Petitioners/ Insurance Company adduced evidence and contested the matter. In the absence of any response to the notice issued, plea of not giving an opportunity to the Writ Petitioners, to adduce further evidence would not arise. 17. In fact, a faint attempt was made by the learned counsel for the Writ Petitioners to show that the order impugned in the writ petition came to be passed after declaration of lockdown by the Central Government. But, the same appears to be incorrect, for the reason that lockdown was declared through electronic media on the night of 23.03.2020, and by then, the order was passed. Therefore, the argument that the Permanent Lok Adalat could not have passed the order after the declaration of lockdown is incorrect. It is also to be noted that the learned counsel failed to take us through the relevant material to establish the plea taken that the claim amount was paid to the counsel for the 2nd Respondent and on that he agreed to withdraw the E.P. 18. Insofar as the claim of repudiation is concerned, as stated earlier, no fresh material has been adduced to show that N.Nagi Reddy had policies existing at the time of taking the policy in dispute. These issues were succinctly discussed in detail by the Permanent Lok Adalat, which are not seriously opposed by the learned counsel for the Writ Petitioners. Though an averment is made in the affidavit that the deceased N. Nagi Reddy concealed the facts of multiple life insurance policies, but no effort was made to adduce evidence to prove the same. The averments in the affidavit filed in support of writ petition does not partake the character of the evidence unless the said averments are established by adducing relevant material, which was not done in this case. 19. For the foregoing reasons, we see no ground to interfere with the Order dated 23.03.2020 passed in PLAC No. 226 of 2018 by the Permanent Lok Adalat for Public Utility Services, Kadapa. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. 20 All the pending miscellaneous applications; if any, are closed.