The Permanent Lok Adalat lacks jurisdiction over disputes not directly related to public utility services, and procedural fairness, including the right to cross-examine, is essential for valid adjudication.

JUDGMENT :

MUNNURI LAXMAN, J.

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 mentalagony 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 injuredapplicant, 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 settle