The main legal point established in the judgment is the jurisdiction of the Permanent Lok Adalat to decide disputes on merits after the failure of conciliation proceedings, emphasizing compliance with procedural requirements, principles of natural justice, and the finality of awards passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat.

Mahavir S. Chauhan, J.

How and when provisions of sub-section (8) of Section 22 C of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (for short, `the 1987 Act') can be invoked by a Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services) (for short, `PLA')?, is the riddle that craves an answer in this intra court appeal preferred by Tata Teleservices Limited (here-in-after referred to as `the appellant') to lay a challenge to order dated September 11, 2015 whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed Civil Writ Petition No. 18927 of 2015, Tata Teleservices Limited v. Kulwinder Singh and another, challenging award dated July 08, 2015(Annexure P-5) whereby PLA, Rupnagar has accepted an application for settlement of dispute and for failure of conciliation proceedings to decide the matter on merits, made by Kulwinder Singh (here-in-after referred to as, `the user').

2. Let's first have a quick overview of the facts of the case.

3. The user, a practicing lawyer and resident of House No. 86, Phase-VI, SAS Nagar (Mohali), had an Airtel mobile phone with sim card No. 9872903100. A representative of the appellant approached the user and offered him a lucrative post-paid plan with good and wide network connectivity provided he (the user) switched over to TATA DOCOMO service. The user, believing the assurance to be true, availed himself of the portability service and switched over to TATA DOCOMO service of the appellant with effect from October 17, 2014. To utter dismay of the user, network connectivity of his mobile phone came out to be dismal. Having failed to get a positive response from the appellant to his various telephonic and written complaints, the user approached the PLA for redressal of his grievance and award of compensation for the inconvenience caused to him. Responding to notice under sub-section (3) of Section 22C of the 1987 Act, the appellant appeared before the PLA and submitted a detailed written statement denying claim of the user by submitting that as per licence granted to it by Department of Telecommunications, Government of India, the coverage percentage of the service provided by the appellant was 90% because 100% coverage is not possible as signal's transmission strength is subject to various technological and external factors like penetration loss owing to physical hindrances viz. walls, buildings, cluttered spaces in between the houses/buildings etc. It was also stated by the appellant in the written statement that user's house is away from the equipment installed by the appellant and signal falls weak there.

4. The PLA put in efforts to bring about a reconciliation between the parties who, in the meanwhile, also adduced evidence in support of their respective pleas as required by sub-section (3)(a) of Section 22 C of the 1987 Act. On March 13, 2015, the PLA recorded the following proceedings:

"In this case certain remarks have been recorded by Sh. D.S. Laungia, Member in back date on 11.2.2015 which are unwarranted and false and a result of decayed mentality. In fact a person who is himself corrupt see's his own reflection in everybody else, due to which these remarks have arisen. He appears to have mastered the art of telling lie. Evidence has been closed by the parties. We have gone through the application, reply filed by the respondent and evidence produced by the parties and we are of the opinion that there exists an element of settlement in these proceedings which may be acceptable to the parties. The terms of a possible settlement have been framed as below and the parties have been told that if they reach an agreement they shall sign the settlement agreement on the basis of which the award would be passed by us :-

1. Whether the respondent is not providing proper coverage/service to the applicant at this house. If so, to what effect?

2. Whether the applicant is entitled for compensation of Rs. 5 lakh for harassment and mental agony and Rs. 55000/- as litigation and harassment charges?

A copy of the terms of possibl