By this common order, the aforesaid writ petitions are being disposed of, as common question of law arises for consideration in these petitions.

2. W.P. (227) No.5470/08 has been tiled to assail the order dated 27.8.2008 passed by the Public Utility Permanent Lok Adalat, Bilaspur. An application was filed by respondents 2 & 3 before the Permanent Lok Adalat (for short the P.L.A.") on 24.9.2007 for grant of compensation of Rs.2 lacs on account of death of Ku. Mana alias Kunti, daughter of the claimants, who died due to electrocution by coming in contact with a broken wire of electricity, which fell upon deceased- Ku. Mana while she was taking bath in an open canal. The claim of respondents No.2 & 3 was denied by the petitioners. The P.L.A. framed various issues. An additional issue was framed by the P.L A. at the instance of one of its learned member, as to whether the P.L.A. had jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute. The Lok Adalat held that it had jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute and grant compensation to respondents 2 & 3 on account of death of their daughter due to electrocution. as the accident was caused in the course of supply of electricity by an establishment.

3. The petitioners in the aforesaid writ petition have challenged the aforesaid order of the P.L.A. on the sole ground that the P.L.A. had no jurisdiction under the law to entertain a dispute of Such a nature where claim for compensation based on tortious liability is raised, as the dispute does not relate to any public utility service and it is not a case where the consumer of electricity has claimed any compensation arising out of any dispute concerning of services or touching any matter relating to providing service, but is a case of accident, resulting in death of a person who did not stand in the capacity of recipient of service or consumer of electricity and the only remedy available to respondents 2 & 3 is to file a regular civil suit claiming compensation.

4. W.P. (227) No.5470/08 has been filed by the then existing Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board, aggrieved by an order passed by the P.L.A., Bilaspur on 14th July, 2008, by which, compensation has been awarded to the claimant on account of death of his cattle by electrocution. In this case also, the claimant's cattle came in contact with the electricity pole and the cattle died. The claimant submitted application on 15.10.2006 before the P.L.A., claiming compensation of Rs.20,000/- against the petitioner. While denying the claim of the claimant, the petitioners, in this petition raised a specific objection with regard to the jurisdiction of P.L.A. by making similar submissions before the P.L.A. as has been raised in the other writ petition. The P.L.A. decided the issue relating to jurisdiction against the petitioners holding that as the cattle of the claimant died by coming into contact with the electricity pole, the claimant is entitled to compensation, as the accident occurred due to negligence of the petitioners and the death of cattle took place during the course of operation of electricity supply.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners in both the writ petitions raised an important question for determination of this Court and that is-whether the PLA. constituted under Section 22 B of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1987") had jurisdiction to entertain a claim for compensation based on tortious liability which are un-connected with service? Learned counsel for the petitioners in the two writ petitions vehemently argued to contend that the statutory scheme engrafted under Chapter - VI A of the Act of 1987 did not intend to confer any plenary jurisdiction like a civil Court to entertain any claim for compensation based on tortious liability merely because the accident was an outcome of alleged negligence on the part of one who was engaged in providing public utility services as defined under Section 22 A (b) of the Act of 1987, unless the di