Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
SUVIR SEHGAL
Raj Kapoor – Appellant
Versus
Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SUVIR SEHGAL, J.
1. The sole question that arises for consideration in the abovementioned bunch of 15 cases, which are being decided by a common order, is :
“Whether Permanent Lok Adalat for Public Utility Services, (for short “the PLA”) has jurisdiction to determine compensation on account of death or bodily injury caused by electrocution.”
2. Facts, in brief, of the lead case i.e. CWP-20463-2016, deserve to be noticed. During the night intervening 15/16.06.2014, Naveen, petitioner’s son was electrocuted when he came in contact with an iron pipe, that was touching a live electric wire. Naveen died and an FIR bearing No.87 dated 16.06.2014, was lodged under Section 304 -A IPC at Police Station Sadar, Rewari. The electric supply was being delivered by Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., a power distribution company (hereinafter referred to “DISCOM”). Petitioner, who is the father of the deceased, (hereinafter referred to as “claimant”), filed a petition, Annexure P-2, under Section 22 -C of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (for short, “the Act of 1987”) seeking compensation of Rs.10 lacs, which has been partly accepted by impugned award dated 09.07.2016, Annexur
The Permanent Lok Adalat lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate compensation claims for death or injury due to electrocution, deeming them tortious disputes requiring civil trial.
Point of Law : Permanent Lok Adalat has, , clearly fallen into an error in adjudicating dispute instituted by the applicant on it's merits, when it could not effect the conciliation/settlement betwee....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the application under Section 22 C of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 was not maintainable for claiming compensation for electrocutio....
The court established that compensation claims for electrocution are not within the jurisdiction of the Permanent Lok Adalat as they do not concern the supply of electricity.
The court emphasized the application of strict liability in electrocution cases, shifting the burden of proof from fault to inherent risk.
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 adjudi....
The Permanent Lok Adalat does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes arising under the Electricity Act, 2003, as the Act provides a complete mechanism for grievance redressal and bars civil cou....
Permanent Lok Adalat has jurisdiction to adjudicate compensation claims under the Motor Vehicles Act after conciliation efforts fail, affirming its authority and established processes.
The Electricity Act, 2003 is a complete code that bars the jurisdiction of the Permanent Lok Adalat in disputes regarding provisional assessments under Section 126.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
