ORDER : ANIL KUMAR UPMAN, J. 1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner M/s R K Joinery Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur seeking following relief:- i) quashing and setting aside the impugned judgment dated 25.02.2006 (Annx.11) and order dated 29.07.2006 (Annx.13) passed by the Permanent Lok. Adalat, Jaipur City, Jaipur. ii) allowing the application (Annx.9) filed by the humble petitioner under Section 22 (C) of the Act of 2002 before the Permanent Lok Adalat, Jaipur City, Jaipur in terms of the prayer contained therein; iii) any other order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly also be passed in favour of humble petitioner including award of cost of this writ petition. 2. Brief facts of the case as narrated in the claim application filed before the Permanent Lok Adalat are that the petitioner- Company is a private limited company having engaged in the business of manufacturing of wooden/iron furniture and handicrafts items. The petitioner-Company got its plant and machinery and other electric instruments and accessories insured to the extent of Rs. 24,00,000/- and another insurance of its stock of finished and unfinished goods in the sum of Rs. 24,00,000/- with the respondent-Insurance Company for a period from 09.05.2003 to 08.05.2004 by making a payment of a sum of Rs. 23,184/- as premium. Unfortunately, on the midnight of 27.01.2004, M/s Surendra Industries which was located adjacent to the factory of the petitioner-Company caught fire, which also spread over to the factory of the petitioner-Company. With respect to the said incident, the petitioner-Company submitted a written report at PS Malviya Nagar, Jaipur and information was also given to the respondent-Insurance Company. Upon receiving the said information from the petitioner-Company, the respondent- Insurance Company appointed S.K. Bakliwal & Co. as Surveyor Loss Assessor, who asked the petitioner-Company to submit the requisite documents regarding the loss suffered by it on account of the aforesaid fire. Upon which, the petitioner-Company submitted its assessment of loss to the Surveyor demanding a sum of Rs. 21,70,661/- along with detailed particulars of loss. Ultimately, the Surveyor submitted its report to the respondent- Insurance Company, against which, the petitioner-Company submitted its detailed objections on 07.05.2004. Upon which, the petitioner-Company submitted its assessment of loss to the Surveyor demanding a sum of Rs. 21,70,661/- along with detailed particulars of loss. Ultimately, the Surveyor submitted its report to the respondent- Insurance Company, against which, the petitioner-Company submitted its detailed objections on 07.05.2004. But the respondent-Insurance Company without taking into consideration the objections as well as taking advantage of the financial crisis being faced by the petitioner-Company, sanctioned a claim of Rs. 7,74,540/- only, which the petitioner had to accept under coercion and threat. Thereafter, on 28.05.2004, the petitioner-Company immediately submitted a detailed representation to respondent No.3 for reconsideration of its claim. When no heed was paid to this, a reminder was also sent on 08.06.2004. But, on 14.06.2004, the respondent-Insurance Company rejected the claim of the petitioner-Company by saying that it had already agreed to accept the claim in full and final discharge of its claim under policy. Thereafter, on 13.07.2004, the petitioner-Company served a legal notice for demand of justice upon the respondent- Insurance Company. When nothing happened, the petitioner- Company filed an application under Section 22 -C of the Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred as “the Act, 1987) before the Permanent Lok Adalat (hereinafter referred as “PLA”). A reply to the said application was filed by the respondent- Insurance Company. However, vide order dated 25.02.2006, the learned PLA rejected the application of the petitioner-Company on wholly unfounded and untenable premise. Thereafter, the petitioner-Company filed a review petition on 24.04.2006 and during pendency of review petition the petitioner-Company through an independent surveyor namely P.K. Bhatia assessed the loss, who in his report, assessed the net loss to the tune of Rs. 13,06,610/-, which was contrary to the report submitted by the Surveyor of the respondent-Insurance Company but learned PLA dismissed the review petition filed the petitioner-Company, simply opining that there is no express provision of review in the Act, 1987. Hence, this writ petition against the order of the learned PLA rejecting the application of the petitioner-Company has been filed before this Court. 3. Assailing the award/order dated 25.02.2006, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the learned Permanent Lok Adalat (PLA) committed serious illegality in rejecting both the petitioner’s claim application and the review petition. Hence, this writ petition against the order of the learned PLA rejecting the application of the petitioner-Company has been filed before this Court. 3. Assailing the award/order dated 25.02.2006, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the learned Permanent Lok Adalat (PLA) committed serious illegality in rejecting both the petitioner’s claim application and the review petition. Counsel submits that the PLA erred in solely relying upon the surveyor’s report, as it is well settled that such a report is not conclusive or binding upon either the insurer or the insured. It is further submitted that another report prepared by P.K. Bhatia, at the request of the petitioner’s company, was also placed before the PLA along with the review petition, but the same was not given due consideration. Counsel emphasizes that the PLA ignored a material aspect of the case, namely that the director of the petitioner’s company is a technically qualified person, a fact acknowledged in the surveyor’s report itself. The director had raised objections to the surveyor’s assessment at a very early stage. It is further contended that the insurer took undue advantage of the petitioner company’s financial crisis and sanctioned only a sum of Rs.7,74,540/- against the actual claim. Under threat that the entire claim would otherwise be rejected, the petitioner had no option but to accept the insurer’s proposal under duress. Counsel has relied upon the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Pradeep Kumar , reported in 2009(7) SCC 787 and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Boghar Polyfab Pvt. Ltd. , reported in AIR 2009 (SC) 170 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the insurer submits that the learned PLA committed no illegality in rejecting the petitioner’s claim application. Counsel argues that since the petitioner voluntarily accepted the claim amount sanctioned by the insurer, he is now estopped from raising any further dispute. It is also submitted that no contrary report to the surveyor’s report was available on record at the relevant time, and hence the PLA rightly relied upon it. Counsel further contends that there is no express provision in the Act enabling the PLA to review its own order, and therefore the rejection of the review petition was proper. It is also submitted that no contrary report to the surveyor’s report was available on record at the relevant time, and hence the PLA rightly relied upon it. Counsel further contends that there is no express provision in the Act enabling the PLA to review its own order, and therefore the rejection of the review petition was proper. The report filed along with the review petition, according to the counsel, holds no significance as it was obtained only after the rejection of the claim application, purportedly to create evidence. The allegation of threat, counsel submits, is an afterthought, since no material or evidence on record indicates any unwillingness on the part of the petitioner’s company at the time of accepting the sanctioned claim amount. 5. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions advanced by all the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. So far as the petitioner’s first contention regarding the surveyor’s report is concerned, this Court considers it appropriate to refer to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. M/s. Hareshwar Enterprises (P) Ltd. & Others, reported in 2021 (8) Judgment Today 198 In this case, after considering the judgment relied upon by the petitioner in case of New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Pradeep Kumar , (supra) Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: “10. In that view of the matter the only question on merits which needs consideration herein is with regard to the loss assessed towards destruction of the stock-in-trade in the fire incident. On this aspect, the learned counsel for the appellant while contending that the NCDRC has committed an error in relying on the surveyor report as sacrosanct without giving credence to the investigation report has referred to the decision in the case, New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Pradeep Kumar (2009) 7 SCC 787 and referred to para 21 and 22 which read as hereunder: – “21. Section 64-UM(2) of the Act, 1938 reads: “64-UM. Section 64-UM(2) of the Act, 1938 reads: “64-UM. (2) No claim in respect of a loss which has occurred in India and requiring to be paid or settled in India equal to or exceeding twenty thousand rupees in value on any policy of insurance, arising or intimated to an insurer at any time after the expiry of a period of one year from the commencement of the Insurance (Amendment) Act, 1968, shall, unless otherwise directed by the Authority, be admitted for payment or settled by the insurer unless he has obtained a report, on the loss that has occurred, from a person who holds a licence issued under this section to act as a surveyor or loss assessor (hereafter referred to as “approved surveyor or loss assessor”): Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall be deemed to take away or abridge the right of the insurer to pay or settle any claim at any amount different from the amount assessed by the approved surveyor or loss assessor.” The object of the aforesaid provision is that where the claim in respect of loss required to be paid by the insurer is Rs.20,000/- or more, the loss must first be assessed by an approved surveyor (or loss assessor) before it is admitted for payment or settlement by the insurer. Proviso appended thereto, however, makes it clear that insurer may settle the claim for the loss suffered by insured at any amount or pay to the insured any amount different from the amount assessed by the approved surveyor (or loss assessor). In other words although the assessment of loss by the approved surveyor is a pre¬requisite for payment or settlement of claim of twenty thousand rupees or more by insurer, but surveyor’s report is not the last and final word. It is not that sacrosanct that it cannot be departed from; it is not conclusive. The approved surveyor’s report may be basis or foundation for settlement of a claim by the insurer in respect of the loss suffered by the insured but surely such report is neither binding upon the insurer nor insured.” 11. In the said decision, it is no doubt held that though the assessment of loss by an approved surveyor is a prerequisite for payment or settlement of the claim, the surveyor report is not the last and final word. In the said decision, it is no doubt held that though the assessment of loss by an approved surveyor is a prerequisite for payment or settlement of the claim, the surveyor report is not the last and final word. It is not that sacrosanct that it cannot be departed from and it is not conclusive. The approved surveyor’s report may be the basis or foundation for settlement of a claim by the insurer in respect of loss suffered by insured but such report is neither binding upon the insurer nor insured. On the said proposition, we are certain that there can be no quarrel. The surveyor’s report certainly can be taken note as a piece of evidence until more reliable evidence is brought on record to rebut the contents of the surveyor’s report.” 7. In view of the aforesaid observations made by Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is evident that the assessment of loss by an approved surveyor is a prerequisite for the payment or settlement of any insurance claim amounting to twenty thousand rupees or more. However, it is equally well settled that the surveyor’s report is neither conclusive nor binding upon either party. Such a report serves as a fundamental basis or guiding framework for the insurer to consider the claim and determine the quantum of loss suffered by the insured. It carries evidentiary value and can be treated as a relevant piece of evidence until and unless more credible or reliable material is brought on record to counter or discredit its contents. In the present case, since no contrary report from any other approved surveyor was produced, this Court is of the considered view that the learned PLA committed no illegality or irregularity in relying upon the available surveyor’s report for adjudication. The reliance placed on that report was, therefore, both lawful and justified in the absence of any rebuttal evidence. 8. The petitioner’s contention that his company was compelled to accept the sanctioned amount is devoid of merit. The judgment in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Boghar Polyfab Pvt. Ltd. (supra), cited on behalf of the petitioner, is distinguishable and inapplicable to the present facts. In that case, the evidentiary record clearly showed that the claimant was coerced into accepting a lower settlement amount, having been informed that unless an undated “Discharge Voucher-in-Advance” acknowledging receipt of Rs. The judgment in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Boghar Polyfab Pvt. Ltd. (supra), cited on behalf of the petitioner, is distinguishable and inapplicable to the present facts. In that case, the evidentiary record clearly showed that the claimant was coerced into accepting a lower settlement amount, having been informed that unless an undated “Discharge Voucher-in-Advance” acknowledging receipt of Rs. 2,33,94,964/- in full and final settlement is executed, no payment would be released. While, there is no such evidence in the present matter indicating any compulsion upon the petitioner at the time of accepting the approved or sanctioned amount. The record further does not reveal that any objection was raised or that the payment was accepted under protest upon receipt of the cheque. 9. With respect to the rejection of the review petition, this Court is also of the view that the law is well settled that in the absence of an express statutory provision conferring the power of review, no authority or tribunal can exercise such jurisdiction on its own. Accordingly, the learned PLA has not committed any error in dismissing the petitioner’s review application, which was founded on the subsequent surveyor’s report. It is also pertinent to note here that this subsequent report was made only after rejection of the claim petition as well as filing of the review petition, which not only casts doubt on its authenticity but also suggests that it was prepared solely to create additional evidence in favour of the petitioner. 10. It is also a well-established principle that High Courts, in the exercise of their writ jurisdiction (under Article 226/227 of the Indian Constitution), generally do not delve into highly disputed questions of fact that require extensive evidence and witness cross-examination. Such matters are typically better suited for a civil Court, which has the procedural framework to adjudicate complex factual disputes. The award passed by a Permanent Lok Adalat (PLA) is final and binding on all the parties to the dispute and is deemed to be a decree of a civil Court. The Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, explicitly states that no appeal shall lie to any Court against an award of the Permanent Lok Adalat. While a formal appeal is barred, an award of the Permanent Lok Adalat can be challenged in a High Court through a writ petition under Article 226 and/or 227 of the Constitution, but only on very limited grounds. While a formal appeal is barred, an award of the Permanent Lok Adalat can be challenged in a High Court through a writ petition under Article 226 and/or 227 of the Constitution, but only on very limited grounds. The High Court does not act as an appellate Court to re-examine the facts or the merits of the decision as if it were a civil appeal. PLA award can be assailed in writ jurisdiction only when question of jurisdictional error, violation of fundamental principles of natural justice, if allegation of fraud, misrepresentation, or coercion prima facie appears in obtaining the award and when award suffers from “patent illegality” on the face of the record but in the present case, no such illegality or irregularity prima facie appears. 11. Section 22 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, outlines the procedure to be followed by the Permanent Lok Adalats (PLAs). An examination of this provision reveals that PLAs possess the authority to make decisions that carry the same force and effect as a decree of a civil Court. However, unlike conventional Courts, PLAs are not stringently bound by the formal rules of evidence or the technicalities of procedural law. The focus is not on the strict proof of evidence but rather on discovering the substantive truth and promoting expeditious, fair, and amicable resolution of disputes. In their proceedings, PLAs adopt a more flexible and informal approach, allowing the parties to directly present their claims, defenses, and explanations without rigid adherence to procedural formalities. The adjudication is based on the materials placed before the forum, the surrounding circumstances of the case, and considerations of equity and justice. This approach ensures that technical obstacles do not impede the pursuit of a just outcome, reflecting the broader objective of the PLA system—to resolve disputes effectively through conciliation and consensus while maintaining the authority of a judicial decree. 12. In the present case, material available on record indicates that after considering each and every aspect, learned PLA passed the order in accordance with law and procedure prescribed under The Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 and in my considered opinion, no interference is called for by this Court in writ jurisdiction. 13. In backdrop of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the instant writ petition is sans merit and hence, same is dismissed. 13. In backdrop of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the instant writ petition is sans merit and hence, same is dismissed. The impugned orders dated 25.02.2006 & 29.07.2006 passed by the learned PLA are hereby affirmed. 14. Stay application is also dismissed. Pending application(s), if any also stands disposed of.