The Permanent Lok Adalat lacks jurisdiction over railway accident claims as the Legal Services Authorities Act excludes railways from public utility services.

JUDGMENT :

(HARISANKAR V. MENON, J.)

The petitioner, the Southern Railway has filed the captioned writ petition seeking to challenge Ext.P7 award issued by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Ernakulam, in a petition filed by the respondent herein, with reference to the provisions of Section 22C(1) read with Section 22A(b)(i) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (for short, the ‘Act’).

2. I have heard Sri.T.C.Krishna, the learned Senior Central Government Counsel, on behalf of the petitioner and Sri.J.Julian Xavier, on behalf of the respondent herein.

3. The facts are not in dispute. The respondent herein, while traveling in a train on 06.03.2015, suffered some injuries on her foot when the berth fell on her. On that basis, she preferred Ext.P1 petition seeking compensation before the Permanent Lok Adalat, pointing out the afore. The Permanent Lok Adalat pursuant to Ext.P3 award decided the issue in favour of the respondent, directing payment of Rs.40,000/- as compensation as well as costs of a further sum of Rs.7,500/-.

4. It is in such circumstances that the captioned writ petition is filed by the petitioner.

5. The contention raised by the learned counsel Sri.Krishna is to the effect that the Lok Adalat has no power or authority to entertain a petition in the nature of the one at Ext.P1. According to him, the petitioner’s remedy lies before the Railway Claims Tribunal with reference to the relevant provisions of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987.

6. Per contra, Sri.Julian, the learned counsel for the respondent, would contend that insofar as the respondent was a passenger in the train, provisions of Section 22A(b)(i) of the Act would apply.

7. I have considered the rival submissions as well as the connected matters.

8. The provisions of Chapter VIA have been introduced in the Act, with effect from 11.06.2002. Hence, there is no dispute as to the applicability of the afore Chapter to the cause of action as highlighted by the respondent herein. However, the issue arising for consideration is as to whether the respondent can maintain a petition under Section 22A. Section 22A of the Act reads as under:

“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, may, in the public interest, by notification, declare to be a public utility service for the purposes of this Chapter.”

9. A perusal of the afore provision would show that it is not the mere fact that the petitioner was a passenger in the train that qualifies her to make an application in the nature of the one at Ext.P1. This Court notices that the afore Section is applicable only as regards the carriage of passengers/goods by,

(i) air

(ii) road

(iii) water

The statute is silent as regards the carriage of passengers by train. I am of the opinion that, when the carriage of passengers by air, road and water is specifically included, by omitting the inclusion of Railways, the legislature has deemed it fit