Hon’ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri Dharmendra Srivastava learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2, Sri Devi Prasad Tripathi and Sri Manish Kumar Pandey learned counsels for the respondent Nos. 3.

2. The claim was made by the respondent No. 3 namely the victim of the accident which occurred on 21.5.2017 when he came in contact with the live high tension line lying in the field of one Kamalkant, at about 8:30 A.M. while passing through the said field and got electrocuted.

As a result of the said accident, lower part of the body of respondent No. 3 got damaged badly. The burn injuries were to the extent that he became 100% disabled.

3. The respondent No. 3 was about 20 years old at the time of accident.

4. The award passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat is being challenged on the ground that the respondent No. 3 was not a consumer of the Electricity Department and as such, it was not open for the Permanent Lok Adalat to entertain his claim after the Electricity Department had refused to enter into any compromise.

5. It is further contended that for any such accident, as per the circular dated 3rd February, 2016, such a victim is provided Rs. 2 lakhs towards compensation based on the degree of disability, certified by the competent Medical Officer.

6. Moreover, the Permanent Lok Adalat has erred in taking into consideration the principles of determination of compensation as provided in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to assess exorbitant amount of Rs. 21 lakhs and odd for the alleged loss to the victim.

7. As far as the fact of occurrence of the accident is concerned, it is contended that the said accident had occurred due to the natural calamity i.e. storm which was beyond the control of the petitioner and it cannot be held liable for there was no fault of the department. For any such incident, the liability to pay compensation is upon the State Government and the electricity Department cannot be saddled with the same.

8. These contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner are refuted by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 with the aid of the reasoning given in the order impugned.

9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. To deal with the first objection of the learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to the jurisdiction of the Permanent Lok Adalat, it would be appropriate to go through the provisions of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (in short “the Act, 1987”) whereunder Permanent Lok Adalat has been constituted.

10. The aims and object of the Act as provided therein is to constitute Legal Services Authority to provide free and competent legal services to the weaker section of the society so as to ensure that opportunities for securing justice are not denied to any citizen by reason of economic or other disabilities. The Lok Adalat is being organized to secure that the operation of the legal system promotes justice, on the basis of equal opportunities.

11. The statement of object and reasons of the Act’ 1987 says that the need to provide statutory support was felt not only to reduce the burden of arrears of work in regular Courts, but to take justice to the door-steps of the poor and the needy and make justice quicker and less expensive.

12. Initially, the system of Lok Adalat under Chapter VI of the Act was being used as an alternative dispute resolution forum. However, under the existing scheme which was mainly based on compromise or settlement between the parties, in case of no consensus, the case was returned to the Court of law. This had resulted in delay in the dispensation of justice. The Act, 1987 was amended by insertion of Chapter VI-A containing Sections 22A to 22E in the year 2002 whereunder Permanent Lok Adalats have been set up. The disputes relating to public utility services have been entrusted to Permanent Lok Adalats not only to settle through the process of conciliation and settlement but if t