The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to deem an award null and void if passed without proper authority and jurisdiction, and the application of the Electricity Act and its regulations to determine compensation in cases of electrical accidents.

JUDGMENT :

DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.

1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner which is a Public Limited Company challenging the award dated 8.4.2015 passed by the Respondent No. 1 in the Pre-litigation Case No. 2/2012.

2. The facts involved in the instant case is that the Respondent No. 2 had filed a petition before the Permanent Lok Adalat, Cachar, Silchar being Case No. PLA No. 2/2012. The translated copy of the said application is enclosed as Annexure- 1 to the writ petition. It transpires from the said application that an electric line of the Petitioner Company runs through the front side of the Respondent No. 2’s house. The said electric line was not properly maintained for a long time. On 01.06.2009 at around 5 AM when the son of the Petitioner aged about 11 years went under a mango tree to pick up mangoes, he got electrocuted when the electric line fell on the ground. At this the husband of the Petitioner and his brother went to the said place and found that the son of the Respondent No. 2 had already expired due to electric shock. The brother-in-law of the Respondent No. 2 informed about the incident to the Udarbond Police Station as well as the Petitioner Company. It is under such circumstances, the said application was filed seeking a compensation of Rs. 7 lakhs for the death of the son of the Respondent No. 2 from the Central Assam Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd.

3. The Petitioner duly participated in the said proceedings i.e. PLA Case No. 2/2012 by submitting a written statement thereby denying the contents. On 08.04.2015 an award was made whereby the Petitioner was directed to make payment of compensation to the Respondent No. 2 of an amount of Rs. 5 lakhs alongwith 6% interest per annum from the date of the death of the victim jointly and severally within 30 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order by the concerned authority.

4. It is the case of the Petitioner herein that the perusal of the impugned award dated 08.04.2015 would show that it is only the Chairman who had signed the said order and as such the said order so passed is without any authority and jurisdiction. The said order has been put to challenge primarily on the following three grounds:

(i) In terms with Section 22B of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 (in short ‘the Act of 1987’) the Permanent Lok Adalat shall consist of a person having a judicial background 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 and 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.

(ii) The dispute in issue nowhere relates to ‘public utility service’ and there is no relation of service provider and service recipient/consumer and as such it was outside the scope of the Permanent Lok Adalat.

(iii) There were no finding or any evidence on record as regards proof of incident, negligence on the part of the APDCL, age of the victim, basis for determination of compensation amount etc.

(iv) It was also alleged that the Permanent Lok Adalat vide the impugned award in absence of any evidence granted compensation. It was also alleged that the report of the Chief Electrical Inspector as per Section 161 of the Electricity Act, 2003 is essential in the matter of electrical accident and the impugned award dated 8.4.2015 was passed without calling for the report from the Chief Electrical Inspector.

5. This Court vide an order dated 29.2.2016 issued notice and the impugned order dated 08.04.2015 passed in Case No. PLA 2/2012 was stayed subject to deposit of Rs. 2,50,000/-. Subsequent thereto, the amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- was deposited with the Registrar General of this Court on 21.4.2016. The records shows that vide an order dated 21.7.2017, the Registry was directed to