Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Jodhpur Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Limited vs Suresh Kumar on 4 April, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:16547]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14696/2023
Jodhpur Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Limited, through Ram Singh
Meena, Assistant Engineer, Bajju, District Bikaner (Raj.).
----Petitioner/Non-applicant No.1
Versus
1. Suresh Kumar S/o Shri Ramkumar S/o Vajira Ram, B/c
Oad, R/o Gogamedi, Tehsil Vijaynagar, District
Sriganganagar (Raj.).
----Respondent/Applicant
2. Subhash Bishnoi S/o Ram Pratap Bishnoi, R/o Chak 1
CDY, Jugatsinghpura, P.S. Bajju, District Bikaner (Raj.)
----Respondent/Non-applicant No.2
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Bhavit Sharma, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr.Aman Bishnoi, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN
Judgment
Judgment Reserved on : 05/03/2025
Judgment Pronounced on : 04/04/2025
1) The present writ petition challenges the award dated
13.06.2023 passed by the learned Permanent Lok Adalat (Public
Utility Services) in Application No. 223/2019, wherein and
whereby the claim of the first respondent for compensation
for injuries sustained due to electrocution was partly allowed. A
sum of Rs. 20 lakhs, along with interest at the rate of 6.5% per
annum from the date of filing of the complaint, was awarded. The
Permanent Lok Adalat also granted Rs. 3 lakhs towards past,
present, and future medical expenses, Rs. 1 lakh for mental
(Downloaded on 05/04/2025 at 05:30:11 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:16547]
agony, and Rs. 10,000/- towards legal expenses. The petitioner
herein was directed to pay the said amount.
2) The writ petitioner, Jodhpur Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Limited,
is the respondent No. 1 before the Permanent Lok Adalat. The first
respondent herein is the applicant, and the second respondent
herein is respondent No. 2 before the Permanent Lok Adalat. For
convenience, the ranks of the parties, as referred to before the
Permanent Lok Adalat, are maintained.
3) The case of the applicant is that he was working as a
lineman on a contract basis with respondent No. 2, who was
engaged by respondent No. 1. On the date of the accident, there
was a power failure at the Milk Dairy at 860 Head near Bajju. At
the behest of the respondents, the electricity supply was turned
off at the back, and to fix the fault, the applicant climbed the
electric pole. However, when he touched the supply line, he
received an electric shock and fell from the pole, as the electrical
current was still flowing. The applicant sustained burns as well as
fall-related injuries and was immediately shifted to Bikaner
Hospital. Due to the severity of his condition, he was further
transferred to Jaipur, where he was admitted to S.M.S. Hospital.
As a result of the injuries, one of his upper limbs was amputated,
and he also sustained injuries to his other limb due to the electric
shock. One Akram Khan submitted a complaint to the SHO of
Police Station Bajju. The applicant’s father sought information
regarding the lodging of the report from the Public Information
Officer, Superintendent of Police, Bikaner, but no information
regarding the registration of the crime was provided. The
applicant’s father attempted to take action on the same day, but
due to his engagement in providing treatment to the injured
(Downloaded on 05/04/2025 at 05:30:11 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:16547] (3 of 26) [CW-14696/2023]
applicant, he was unable to do so. Subsequently, the applicant
submitted an application before the Permanent Lok Adalat,
Bikaner, claiming compensation of Rs. 30 lakhs, stating that the
incident occurred due to the negligence of the respondents. As a
result of the accident, the applicant’s both upper limbs have
become useless, leading to the loss of his earnings and livelihood,
and he is still undergoing treatment.
4) The respondent No. 1 filed a reply to the applicant’s claim,
stating that it had entered into a contract with M/s. Vinayak
Engineers, Sikar, vide agreement dated 21.12.2018, for
completing the electrical work in a safe manner. The said
contractor had furnished a list of employees involved in carrying
out the work for the electricity department. However, the
applicant’s name was not found in the said list. Furthermore, no
information regarding the incident was provided to them.
Therefore, respondent No. 1 prayed for the dismissal of the
application.
5) The respondent No. 2 filed a reply stating that he is
neither an employer nor a contractor with the respondent No. 1.
He further asserted that he does not own any registered firm and
has never worked as a contractor with the electricity department.
Additionally, he submitted that the applicant is not entitled to any
compensation from respondent No. 2, as there is no material
evidence to show that the injured applicant was working under
him. Therefore, he prayed for the dismissal of the application.
6) The Permanent Lok Adalat initially attempted to settle the
dispute by formulating terms of settlement; however, the parties
did not agree to settled terms. Consequently, the Permanent Lok
(Downloaded on 05/04/2025 at 05:30:11 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:16547] (4 of 26) [CW-14696/2023]
Adalat assumed the role of an adjudicator to decide the dispute on
its merits. After examining the claims and counter-claims and
hearing both parties, the impugned award was passed. Hence, the
present writ petition.
7) Heard learned counsel for both the sides.
8) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/
respondent No. 1 before the Permanent Lok Adalat contended that
the nature of the dispute brought before the Permanent Lok
Adalat was unrelated to Public Utility Services and dispute is
relating to tortious liability, which falls outside the scope of Public
Utility Services. Therefore, the Permanent Lok Adalat ought not to
have taken cognizance of the application, and the same should
have been dismissed.
9) The learned counsel further submitted that the applicant is
neither a user nor a consumer of the service. The dispute arises
from a contractual engagement and the injuries sustained while
discharging duties, which cannot be classified as a dispute related
to Public Utility Services. Consequently, such a dispute falls
beyond the limited jurisdiction conferred upon the Permanent Lok
Adalat.
10) The learned counsel for the petitioner/respondent No. 1
before the Permanent Lok Adalat further argued that the
procedure adopted by the Permanent Lok Adalat was neither the
notified procedure nor the procedure prescribed under regular
laws for recording evidence. According to him, the pleadings of
both the applicant and the non-applicants clearly demonstrate that
disputed facts are involved in the case, requiring serious
adjudication based on proper evidence presented by both parties.
(Downloaded on 05/04/2025 at 05:30:11 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:16547] (5 of 26) [CW-14696/2023]
He submitted that accepting affidavit evidence from either party,
especially when serious conflicting stands are taken, without
affording an opportunity for cross-examination, does not meet the
criteria of fair play. The award was passed solely based on the
acceptance of the applicant’s affidavit evidence. The reliance on
such affidavit evidence, without proper testing the veracity,
violates the principles of fair play and natural justice. Therefore,
the award, being based on such evidence, ought to be set aside
and requires interference by this Court.
11) In support of his arguments, the learned counsel for the
petitioner has relied upon the decision of High Court of
Chhattisgarh at Biaspur in the case of Superintending Engineer
CSEB Bilaspur Division & Ors. Vs. Public Utility Permanent
Lok Adlat, Bilaspur & Ors., reported in MANU/CG/0349/2011
and the case of Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs.
Dasru Patel & Ors., reported in MANU/CG/0194/2011 as well as
the decision of High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of
Punjab National Bank & Anr. Vs. Suresh Kumar Nagpal [CWP
No.14697 of 2014], decided on 1st August, 2014 and the decision
of High Court of Delhi in the case of Dr. U.S.Awasthi Vs.
Adjudicating Authority PLA & Anr. [WP(C) No.125/2023],
decided on 10th January, 2023.
12) Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for respondent
No.1 countered the arguments of the learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner and submitted that the Permanent Lok Adalat
has jurisdiction to take cognizance of all disputes involving the
provider of Public Utility Services. This jurisdiction is not restricted
to users or consumers of the services provided by the
(Downloaded on 05/04/2025 at 05:30:11 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:16547] (6 of 26) [CW-14696/2023]
respondents. He argued that a third party, like the respondent
no.1, is also has a right to raise a dispute of this nature before the
Permanent Lok Adalat. Any party to such a dispute is entitled to
move an application before the Permanent Lok Adalat, as is
evident from the words “any party to the disputes” used in Section
22-C of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (hereinafter
referred to as “the Act of 1987”). According to him, the phrase
“any party” cannot be interpreted restrictively to include only the
service provider, user, or consumer. Instead, it has a broader
meaning that encompasses third party who sustained injuries or
damages during the course of providing the service. Therefore,
the award of the PLA cannot be said to be without jurisdiction.
13) The learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1
submitted that the procedure adopted by the Permanent Lok
Adalat in recording evidence is in accordance with the various
provisions under Chapter VI of the Act of 1987. According to him,
Section 22-D of the Act of 1987 clearly states that the Permanent
Lok Adalat is not bound by the Civil Procedure Code or the Indian
Evidence Act. It must decide the matters before it, guided by the
principles of natural justice, objectivity, fair play, equity, and other
principles of justice. He also relied on Section 22 of the Act of
1987 to contend that the Permanent Lok Adalat is entitled to lay
down its own procedure for the determination of any dispute
brought before it. The acceptance of evidence by affidavit cannot
be faulted on the ground of not subjecting such witness for cross-
examination by the opposite party, since the Indian Evidence Act
is not applicable to proceedings before PLA as clearly laid down
under Section 22-D of the Act of 1987.
(Downloaded on 05/04/2025 at 05:30:11 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:16547] (7 of 26) [CW-14696/2023]
14) I have considered the rival submission of both the parties
and carefully perused the impugned award as well as material
available on record.
15) In the above backdrop of the arguments, it is apt to refer
to Section 22-B of the Act of 1987, which reads as follows:-
“22B. Establishment of Permanent Lok Adalats.–
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section19,
the Central Authority or, as the case may be, every
State Authority shall, by notification, establish
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.
(2) Every Permanent Lok Adalat established for an
area notified under sub-section (1) shall consist of–
(a) 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, shall
be the Chairman of the Permanent Lok Adalat;
and
(b) two other persons having adequate experience in
public utility service to be nominated by the
Central Government or, as the case may be, the
State Government on the recommendation of
the Central Authority or, as the case may be, the
State Authority,appointed by the Central Authority or, as the case
may be, the State Authority, establishing such
Permanent Lok Adalat and the other terms and
conditions of the appointment of the Chairman and
other persons referred to in clause (b) shall be such
as may be prescribed by the Central Government.”
From a reading of the above provision, it is
clear that the Permanent Lok Adalats are established to
exercise jurisdiction over one or more public utility services.
The constitution of the Permanent Lok Adalat indicates that
the sitting District Judge or Additional District Judge,
whether retired or serving, or any judicial officer higher in
(Downloaded on 05/04/2025 at 05:30:11 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:16547] (8 of 26) [CW-14696/2023]
rank than the District Judge, shall be the Chairman of the
Permanent Lok Adalat. Apart from that, two other persons
having the adequate experience in Public Utility Services are
part of the Permanent Lok Adalat.
16) It is also relevant to refer to Section 22-A of the Act of
1987, which defines Public Utility Services means, which reads
hereunder:-
“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;
(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, in the public interest, by notification, declare
to be a public utility service for the purposes of this
Chapter.”
The above definition part indicates six notified
services and also includes “any service” which the Central
Government or the State Government, in the public interest,
may declare by notification to be a public utility service for
the purposes of the present Chapter.
17) It is also appropriate to refer to Section 22-C of the Act of
1987, which is hereunder:-
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(Downloaded on 05/04/2025 at 05:30:11 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:16547] (9 of 26) [CW-14696/2023]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 also 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 sub-section(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),
(Downloaded on 05/04/2025 at 05:30:11 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:16547] (10 of 26) [CW-14696/2023]
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 the 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.”
A glance at the above provision indicates that
any party to a dispute may make an application to a
Permanent Lok Adalat for the settlement of the dispute
before it is brought before any court. There are restrictions
on the exercise of jurisdiction under these provisions. One of
the restrictions is that the Permanent Lok Adalat shall not
have jurisdiction over any matter relating to an offence that
is not compoundable under any law. It also limits the
pecuniary value of the property in dispute, and such value
being subject to revision by the Central Government through
notification. Another restriction is contained in sub-section
(2), which prohibits any party from invoking the jurisdiction
of a court in respect of the same dispute after an application
(Downloaded on 05/04/2025 at 05:30:11 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:16547] (11 of 26) [CW-14696/2023]
has been presented to the Permanent Lok Adalat. The above
provisions also prescribe the manner in which the application
must be dealt with. After the statement, additional
settlement, and reply, if any, are filed to the satisfaction of
the Lok Adalat, it shall conduct conciliation proceedings
between the parties to the application. If the Permanent Lok
Adalat is of the opinion that there exists an element of
settlement in such proceedings that may be acceptable to
the parties, it must formulate the terms of a possible
settlement and communicate them to the parties for their
observations. If the parties reach an agreement on the
settlement of the dispute, they shall be required to sign the
settlement agreement, and the Permanent Lok Adalat shall
pass an award in terms of the agreement and furnish a copy
to each party. In the event that the conciliation proceedings
fail to reach an agreement, the Permanent Lok Adalat shall,
if the dispute does not relate to any offence, decide the
dispute. This means that the Permanent Lok Adalat is
required to decide the dispute on its merits if conciliation
fails. However, it has no jurisdiction to decide disputes
relating to any offence.
18) From a reading of the provisions referred to herein before,
it is clear that the purpose of establishing the Permanent Lok
Adalat is to exercise limited jurisdiction over one or more public
utility services and not otherwise. The types of Public Utility
Services have been enumerated with the power to the Central
Government or the State Government to expand the definition of
(Downloaded on 05/04/2025 at 05:30:11 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:16547] (12 of 26) [CW-14696/2023]
Public Utility Service to include any other services. The words “any
party to a dispute” under Section 22-C of the Act of 1987 must be
interpreted in the context of the jurisdiction for which the
Permanent Lok Adalat has been established. The argument of the
learned counsel for the applicant is that “any party to a dispute”
should be interpreted in its natural sense to mean that not only
the service provider, user, or consumer of services, but also any
third party, within the meaning of “any party to a dispute.” It is
also his argument that a dispute need not necessarily be one
concerning the service between the provider and the
user/consumer but include any dispute with provider of public
utility services.
19) The contrary argument is that “any party to a dispute”
referred in Section 22-C of the Act of 1987 must be construed to
mean either of the parties to the dispute and not a third party.
Furthermore, the dispute must be related to or in connection with
one or more public utility services.
20) To resolve the above contentions, it is required to refer to
rules of interpretation of the statutory provisions. In the case of
Superintending Engineer CSEB Bilaspur Division (cited
supra), a similar question arose before the High Court of
Chhattisgarh. While resolving such a question, the Court held as
under:-
14. Use of words “in respect of” further clarifies
legislative intention that the P.L.A. would be
exercising jurisdiction relating to one or more public
utility services. In the case of Tolaram Relumal and
another Vs. The State of Bombay AIR 1954 SC 196
interpreting the words “In respect of” occurring in
Section 18 Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control)
Art, 1947, it was construed as something relating to
words “with reference to”. In the case of Union of
(Downloaded on 05/04/2025 at 05:30:11 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:16547] (13 of 26) [CW-14696/2023]
India and another Vs. Vijay Chand Jain MANU/SC/
0218/1977 (1977)2 SCC 405, the Supreme Court held
that the words “In respect of” admit of a wide
connotation in the context of Section 23 (1B), the
expression means ‘being connected with’. Taking into
consideration that Section 22B deals with
establishment of Permanent Lok Adalats and seeks to
define the jurisdiction of P.L.A.s. the words “in respect
of” occurring before “one or more public utility
service”, upon just, logical and fair interpretation
would mean that the Lok Adalats are intended to be
established to exercise jurisdiction in relation to
disputes relating to or with reference to or connected
with public utility services. Therefore, the legislative
intention is to confer limited furisdiction on P.L.As and
not a plenary jurisdiction like a regular Court. In the
case of Ajay Sinha (supra) also, the Supreme Court
while dealing with the nature, scope and extent of
jurisdiction of P.L.As under the statutory scheme of
Chapter VIA, observed that the Court must guard
against the construction of statute which would confer
such a wide power in the P.L.A., having regard to sub-
section (8) of Section 22C of the Act of 1987.
15. The expression “public utility services” embodied
in Section 22B of the Act of 1987, on natural, plain
and grammatical meaning in the context in which it
has been used, leads to conclusion that the P.L.As.
have jurisdiction in respect of disputes connected with
services, which are in the category of public utility
services as enumerated in Section 22 A (b) of the Act
of 1987. In the expression “public utility services”,
words “public utility” qualifies the word “service”.
Therefore, the jurisdiction of P.L.As. is essentially
relating to, service which pre-supposes existence of a
dispute as between the service provider and service
recipient.
16. If the provision contained in Section 22 B are
interpreted in a manner to confer wide jurisdiction of
P.L.As, to deal with and adjudicate upon the disputes
even though they are not related to or connected with
service, merely because one of the party to the
dispute is an establishment, providing public utility
service, the word “service” used in Section 22 B of the
Act of 1987 would become superfluous and to say,
otiose. In the case of Aswini Kumar Ghose7 (supra),
explaining the rule that rejection of words is to be
avoided, it was held as under:
26……….It is not a sound principle of construction
to brush aside words in a statute as being
inapposite surplusage, if they can have appropriate(Downloaded on 05/04/2025 at 05:30:11 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:16547] (14 of 26) [CW-14696/2023]application in circumstances conceivably within the
contemplation of the statute.
In the case of J.K. Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills
Co. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. and other
MANU/SC/0310/1996: AIR 1996 SC 1170 the
Supreme Court held as under:
(7)……….. In the interpretation of statutes the
Courts always presume that the legislature inserted
every part thereof for a purpose and the legislative
intention is that every part of the statute should
have effect………
The aforesaid principles were again reiterated in the
case of Ghanshyamdas Vs. Regional Asstt. Commr. of
Sales Tax, Nagpur & Ors. AIR 1964 SC 766 in
following words:
A construction which would attribute redundancy
to a Legislature shall not be accepted except for
compelling reasons.
Further, in the case of Union of India and another Vs.
Hansoli Devi and Ors. MANU/SC/0768/2002: (2002) 7
SCC 273, the Supreme Court held as under:
9. Before we embark upon an inquiry as to what
would be the correct interpretation of Section 28A,
we think it appropriate to bear in mind certain
basic principles of interpretation of a statute. The
rule stated by Tindal, C.J. in Sussex Peerage case8
still holds the field. The aforesaid rule is to the
effect: (ER p. 1057)
If the words of the statute are in
themselves precise and unambiguous, then
no more can be necessary than to expound
those words in their natural and ordinary
sense. The words themselves alone do, in
such case, best declare the intention of the
lawgiver.
It is a cardinal principle of construction of a statute
that when the language of the statute is plain and
unambiguous, then the court must give effect to
the words used in the statute and it would not be
open to the courts to adopt a hypothetical
construction on the ground that such construction
is more consistent with the alleged object and
policy of the Act……
It is no doubt true that if on going through the
plain meaning of the language of statutes, it leads
to anomalies, injustices and absurdities, then the
(Downloaded on 05/04/2025 at 05:30:11 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:16547] (15 of 26) [CW-14696/2023]
court may look into the purpose for which the
statute has been brought and would try to give a
meaning, which would adhere to the purpose of
the statute. Patanjali Sastri, C.J. in the case of
Aswini Kumar Ghose v. Arabinda Bose had held
that it is not a sound principle of construction to
brush aside words in a statute as being inapposite
surplusage, if they can have appropriate
application in circumstances conceivably within the
contemplation of the statute. In Quebec Railway,
Light Heat & Power Co. Ltd. v. Vandry it had been
observed that the legislature is deemed not to
waste its words or to say anything in vain and a
construction which attributes redundancy to the
legislature will not be accepted except for
compelling reasons.”
21) It is also apt to refer to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ajay
Sinha & Anr., reported in (2008) 7 SCC 454. The relevant para of
the said judgment reads hereunder:-
“41. We must guard against construction of a
statute which would confer such a wide power in
the Permanent Lok Adalat having regard to sub-
section (8) of Section 22-C of the Act. The
Permanent Lok Adalat must at the outset
formulate the questions. We however, do not
intend to lay down a law, as at present advised,
that Permanent Lok Adalat would refuse to
exercise its jurisdiction to entertain such cases
but emphasise that it must exercise its power
with due care and caution. It must not give an
impression to any of the disputants that it from
the very beginning has an adjudicatory role to
play in relation to its jurisdiction without going
into the statutory provisions and restrictions
imposed thereunder.”
22) It is also apt to refer to the Statement of Objects and
Reasons of the 2002 Amendment Act, which introduced a new
Chapter VI-A with the heading of “Pre-Litigation Conciliation and
Settlement, which are hereunder:-
“(1) The Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987
was enacted to constitute legal services
authorities for providing and competent legal
services to the weaker sections of the society to(Downloaded on 05/04/2025 at 05:30:11 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:16547] (16 of 26) [CW-14696/2023]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.”
23) It is also relevant to refer to salient features of proposed
legislation of Amendment Act of 2022, which reads hereunder:-
(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;
(Downloaded on 05/04/2025 at 05:30:11 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:16547] (17 of 26) [CW-14696/2023]
(ii) the Permanent Lok Adalat shall exercise
jurisdiction in respect of one or more public
utility services such as transport services of
passengers of 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.”
24) The interpretation of “any party to a dispute,” as found in
Section 22-C of the Act of 1987, must be construed in the context
of the principles enumerated herein before for interpreting words.
The establishment of the Permanent Lok Adalat to deal with petty
matters relating to public utility services. Through such an
establishment, it is sought to take away the jurisdiction of regular
(Downloaded on 05/04/2025 at 05:30:11 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:16547] (18 of 26) [CW-14696/2023]
courts. A provision that takes away the jurisdiction of the courts
must be interpreted strictly. A balance must be struck in this
regard. The provisions of Section 22-B of the Act of 1987 itself
makes clear that the establishment of the Permanent Lok Adalat is
for exercising jurisdiction in respect of one or more public utility
services. The words “in respect of” were considered by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Anr. vs. Vijay
Chand Jain, reported in (1977) 2 SCC 405, which was cited in the
decision of the Chhattisgarh High Court in the case of
Superintending Engineer CSEB Bilaspur Division (cited
supra). In this case, the expression “in respect of” means
“connected with,” and in the context of Section 22-B, it should be
interpreted accordingly. The Permanent Lok Adalat can exercise
jurisdiction in respect of disputes relating to, or with reference to,
or connected with public utility services. The jurisdiction tribunal is
limited and not plenary, as is the case with regular courts as
rightly held by the High Court of Chhattisgarh in the case of
Superintending Engineer CSEB Bilaspur Division (cited
supra). The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the 2002
Amendment clearly show that cases arising in relation to public
utility services, such as Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited,
Delhi Vidyut Board, etc., need to be settled urgently so that
people receive justice without delay, even at the pre-litigation
stage. This way, most of petty cases, which ought not to go to
regular courts, could be settled at the pre-litigation stage itself,
resulting in a significant reduction of the workload in regular
courts.
(Downloaded on 05/04/2025 at 05:30:11 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:16547] (19 of 26) [CW-14696/2023]
25) The learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1
has relied upon the decision of Karnataka High Court at Dharwad
Bench rendered in a batch of writ petitions and leading being Writ
Petition No.101244/2016 titled as “The Managing Director,
HESCOM & Ors. Vs. Shri Nagappa Manneppa Naik & Ors.”
decided on 3rd September, 2021, particularly para 31, which reads
hereunder:-
“31. The contention that the disputes relating to
‘public utility’ and in specific relating to ‘supply of
power’ ought to be construed as being limited to a
dispute between, the Power Supply Company and the
recipient of service and hence the disputes by the
petitioners fall outside the purview of Chapter VI A
deserves consideration. Reliance has been placed by
the counsel for the Power Supply Company on the
judgment of this court in the case of Bajaj Allianz
Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra). However, it ought to be
noted that the scheme of the provisions do not seek
to restrict adjudication only to disputes arising out of
a contractual relationship. Keeping in mind the
beneficial nature of the Legislation, ‘any dispute’
relating to a public utility can be stated to fall within
the ambit of the redressal mechanism envisaged in
Section 22-C. The words ‘any party’ is in relation to
a ‘dispute’ and not in relation to the contract of
service by the utility. The judgment in the case of
Bajaj Allianz (supra) does not militate against such
interpretation. In fact, the above mentioned case was
decided on the premise that the liability of the
Insurance Company would only arise where the
contract of indemnity becomes operational and that
would be only on the passing of the judgment/award/
decree fastening liability on the owner. Hence, it was
held that there was no dispute between the claimant
and the insurance company against which a claim
under Section 22-C i.e., against a public utility was
sought to be made. However, in the present case, the
dispute being one between the claimants and the
entity that supplies power whose actions have given
rise to the claim, the same would indeed fall within
the purview of Chapter VI-A.”
The High Court of Karnataka has interpreted “any party in
relation to a dispute” mean and not confined to user/consumer of
(Downloaded on 05/04/2025 at 05:30:11 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:16547] (20 of 26) [CW-14696/2023]
public utility service. It comprehends third party to such a dispute,
who can also make an application even though he is not a
user/consumer of such service. The requirement is that the claim
application should be against public utility services. With due
respect, such an interpretation is contrary to the limited
jurisdiction conferred on the Permanent Lok Adalat, which
functions as a tribunal and not as an ordinary civil court. The term
“any party,” must be mean either party to a dispute relating to
one or more public utility services. Such words comprehends the
service provider, user or consumer of such a service and not the
other party, who has suffered damage at the hands provider of
such public utility service. If broader interpretation is given, the
limited jurisdiction would become unlimited jurisdiction, which was
not the intention of the amendment. Therefore, this Court is of the
view that the dispute raised in the present case is beyond the
jurisdiction of the Permanent Lok Adalat. Furthermore, the dispute
in present is not relating to one or more public utility services, and
the injured is neither a user/consumer of such public utility
services. If the interpretation adopted by the Karnataka High
Court is accepted, all kinds of disputes against the provider of
public utility services would be brought within the purview of
Permanent Lok Adalat, which was not the intention of the
Amendment Act. Therefore, the view expressed by the Karnataka
High Court is not considered to be correct one.
26) It is also relevant to refer to the recent decision of Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Canara Bank Vs. G.S.Jayarama,
reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC 499. The relevant para 22 of the
said judgment reads hereunder:-
(Downloaded on 05/04/2025 at 05:30:11 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:16547] (21 of 26) [CW-14696/2023]
“22. While the jurisdiction of the Permanent Lok
Adalat is limited to disputes regarding public
utility services, crucially, its powers are wider
than the Lok Adalat in many respects:
(i) Parties can approach Permanent Lok Adalats
directly under Section 22-C(1), while Lok
Adalats are sent their cases by courts where the
dispute is pending (under Section 20(1)) or by
the Authority or Committee organising the Lok
Adalat under Section 19(1) after they receive it
from the parties (under Section 20(2)). Indeed,
an application made to the PermanentLok
Adalat ousts the jurisdiction of a civil court
(under Section 22-C(2));
(ii) Permanent Lok Adalats can direct the parties to
submit written submissions, replies, evidence
and documents (Section 22-C(3));
(iii) Other then attempting conciliation with parties,
the Permanent Lok Adalats can also decide a
dispute on its merits if the settlement fails
(Section-C(7)); and
(iv) Permanent Lok Adalats can transmit an award
made to a civil court having local jurisdiction,
and such civil court shall execute the order as if
it were a decree made by that court (Section
22-E(5)).
The entrustment of wider powers to the Permanent
Lok Adalat is supported by its membership,
comprising of a District Judge or Additional District
Judge or some one who has held judicial office higher
in rank than that of a District Judge (as compared to
only judicial officers in Lok Adalats)”
27) The above decision is clear that PLA is having limited
jurisdiction to deal with disputes regarding public utility services.
The other decision relied upon by the petitioners in cases of Dr.
U.S.Awasthi ( cited supra) and Suresh Kumar Nagpal ( cited
supra) are not much relevant to the present dispute. In the light
of above statutory provisions and principles laid down in the
decisions referred hereinbefore, this Court holds that the
Permanent Lok Adalat, in the present case, has assumed
jurisdiction, which is not conferred on it.
(Downloaded on 05/04/2025 at 05:30:11 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:16547] (22 of 26) [CW-14696/2023]
28) While adverting to the other contentions, no doubt,
Section 22-D of the Act of 1987 clearly states that the Permanent
Lok Adalat is guided by the principles of natural justice,
objectivity, fair play, equity, and other principles of justice. It is
not bound by the Civil Procedure Code or the Indian Evidence Act.
Further, Section 22(2) enables the Permanent Lok Adalat to laid
down its own procedure for the determination of any dispute
brought before it. Sub-section (3) of Section 22(C) of the Act of
1987 prescribes the procedure to be adopted upon the filing of the
application. A reading of such a provision it is crystal clear that
each party to the application is required to file a written statement
containing the points or issues in the dispute, the grounds relied
upon in support of or in opposition to such points or issues. Such a
party may supplement the statement with any documents and
other evidence which such party deems appropriate to prove the
facts and points. Each party must also send a copy of the
statement, together with copies of the documents and other
evidence, if any, other party to the application. It also allows the
filing of an additional statement at any stage of the conciliation
proceedings and requires that any document received by it be
communicated to the other party so as to enable them to file a
reply. No doubt, there is no express procedure is prescribed under
the Legal Services Authorities Act or Rules for proving the facts in
issue in an application. It only prescribes that other documents
and evidence must be reciprocally communicated to prove such
facts. “Other evidence” comprehends both documentary and oral
evidence.
(Downloaded on 05/04/2025 at 05:30:11 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:16547] (23 of 26) [CW-14696/2023]
29) Now, the question before this Court is in the case of
disputing claims exist between the parties with regard to the
points in issue before the Permanent Lok Adalat, and each party
files an affidavit of evidence in proof or disprove the points or
issues in the application, is it necessary to afford an opportunity to
opposite party to cross-examine the witness.
30) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.L.Tripathi Vs.
State Bank of India, reported in (1984) 1 SCC 43 held as
follows:-
“32. The basic concept is fair play in action
administrative, judicial or quasi-judicial. The
concept of fair play in action must depend upon
the particular lis, if there be any, between the
parties. If the credibility of a person who has
testified or given some information is in doubt, or
if the version or the statement of the person who
has testified, is, in dispute, right of cross-
examination must inevitably for part of fair
play in action but where there is no lis
regarding the facts but certain explanation of the
circumstances there is no requirement of cross-
examination to be fulfilled to justify fair play in
action. When on the question of facts there was
no dispute, no real prejudice has been caused to
a party aggrieved by an order, by absence of
any formal opportunity of cross-
examination per se does not invalidate or
vitiate the decision arrived at fairly. This is
more so when the party against whom an order
has been passed does not dispute the facts and
does not demand to test the veracity of the
version or the credibility of the statement.”
31) It is needless to say that the right of cross-examination is
a part of fair play in action, and if the Indian Evidence Act is
applicable, the procedure for recording evidence in the Evidence
Act must be followed. However, if the Evidence Act is not
applicable, what would the procedure? In summary proceedings,
(Downloaded on 05/04/2025 at 05:30:11 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:16547] (24 of 26) [CW-14696/2023]
the elaborate procedures enumerated under the Indian Evidence
Act need not be followed when the application of the Evidence Act
is excluded. In such proceedings, when the questions of fact are
not in seriously in dispute, no real prejudice would be caused to a
party merely because the right of cross-examination is denied.
The absence of any formal opportunity for cross-examination, per
se, does not invalidate or vitiate the decision arrived at fairly. This
means that when the facts are not seriously in dispute, the
Presiding Officer of the Permanent Lok Adalat is not required to
compulsorily give a party the opportunity to cross-examine the
witnesses. It all depends upon the claims and counter-claims. If
serious disputes are involved in the proof of facts in issue, and if
each party files an affidavit, fair play requires granting of the
opportunity to test the veracity of such witnesses. No doubt, such
a right must be invoked in the context of the pleadings and
evidence produced on record and it is within the discretion of the
Presiding Officer to decide whether to grant a party the right to
cross-examine or not. If there is a serious dispute, parties shall be
given the right to cross examine the witness to test the veracity of
a witness whose affidavit evidence is filed before the Tribunal even
though the Indian Evidence Act is inapplicable. Though Section
22-D of the Act of 1987 excludes the application of the Indian
Evidence Act and the Civil Procedure Code, the Tribunal is still
guided by the principles of natural justice, objectivity, fair play,
equity, and other principles of justice. The right of cross-
examination is part of fair play, and whether such right to be
(Downloaded on 05/04/2025 at 05:30:11 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:16547] (25 of 26) [CW-14696/2023]
granted or not depends on the pleadings and evidence of each
party with regard to the facts in issue.
32) In the present case, there are serious disputes concerning
the employment of the applicant/injured, and such a dispute
ought not to have been decided merely based on affidavit
evidence without determining the veracity of the witness.
33) Section 22(2) of the Act of 1987 enables the Permanent
Lok Adalat to specify its own procedure for the determination of
any dispute before it. When the Permanent Lok Adalat decides to
follow its own procedure, such a procedure must be specified and
communicated to the parties in advance, so that the parties could
be aware of notified procedure. Such procedure cannot remain
unnotified. The parties must be in a position to understand the
procedure specified by the Tribunal to resolve the issues before it.
In the absence of such explicit specification, it cannot be said that
the Tribunal has specified its own procedure. In the absence of a
prescribed procedure, the general principles of adjudication of any
dispute must be followed, and such a prescription must satisfy the
requirements of natural justice, objectivity, fair play, equity, and
other principles of justice.
34) In the present case, affidavits from each party have been
filed. Without affording any opportunity to cross examine such
witness how Tribunal will weigh the evidence of affidavits
submitted by each party. When conflicting evidence is presented
by the applicant and the respondents, in the absence of an
opportunity to test the veracity of such witnesses, it is improper
for a presiding office to give weightage to one affidavit and
(Downloaded on 05/04/2025 at 05:30:11 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:16547] (26 of 26) [CW-14696/2023]
exclude weightage to other affidavit. In the decision-making
process, the adjudicator would be deprived of the opportunity to
test the credibility of such evidence. Therefore, when conflicting
claims are made by the applicant and the respondents with regard
to the facts in issue, based on the affidavits, the right of cross-
examination should be afforded. However, this is not the case in
all matters; it depends on the existence of evidence before the
Tribunal, including documentary evidence and the facts in dispute.
In the said backdrop of the facts in hand, the Tribunal should have
given opportunity to parties to test veracity of witness. Thus, the
impugned award of the Permanent Lok Adalat is unsustainable and
deserves to be set aside.
35) In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The award dated
13.06.2023 passed by the learned Permanent Lok Adalat (Public
Utility Services) in Application No.223/2019 is set aside. However,
the applicant is given the liberty to initiate proceedings before the
appropriate civil court having jurisdiction. When such a claim is
filed before the ordinary civil court, the court shall consider the
period spent before this Court for the purpose of calculating the
limitation period
36) In the circumstances, no order as to costs.
37) Pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand
disposed of.
(MUNNURI LAXMAN),J
34-NK/-
(Downloaded on 05/04/2025 at 05:30:11 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
[ad_1]
Source link