SUNITA AGARWAL, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

2. The award passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat dated 26.6.2018 in PLA Complaint Case No.3 of 2016 (Raman Singh v. Divisional Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division-I & Anr.) is challenged on the ground that the Permanent Lok Adalat had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition. To substantiate this contention, the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner are two folds:-

Firstly, it is contended that the claimant was not a consumer of electricity and, as such, the claim petition before Permanent Lok Adalat was not maintainable. Even otherwise, the dispute being raised by the claimant was of civil nature which was beyond the jurisdiction of the Permanent Lok Adalat. The assessment of compensation payable to the owner of the buffalo was subject matter of evidence which could have been adjudicated only in a civil suit.

Second submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the claimant owner was entitled to Rs.16,400/- only for the death of buffalo due to electrocution as per the Circular dated 3.2.2016. The claim was duly recommended by the Competent Authority but the payment was subject matter of approval of the Regional Office. Steps had already been taken for payment of compensation to the claimant, it was, therefore, not open for the Permanent Lok Adalat to entertain the claim petition and award Rs.40,000/- towards compensation that too without any evidence. The Permanent Lok Adalat has itself recorded that the receipts filed by the claimant to prove the price of the buffalo was not acceptable as they were plane piece of papers.

3. It is submitted that every such incident which occurs as a result of the electrical fixtures is required to be intimated to the authorised person of the Generating Company or licensee within 24 hours of the knowledge of the occurrence thereof. On such intimation, the Inspector as defined under the Intimation of Accidents (Form and Time of Service of Notice) Rules, 2005 (in short the Rules, 2005) is to make an enquiry and report the matter to the Competent Authority who will deal with such matters.

4. It is submitted that no such intimation had been given by the claimant prior to filing of the claim petition and, as such, he was not entitled to any relief.

5. Reference has also been made to the U.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission (Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum and Electricity Ombudsman Regulations, 2007 (in short the Regulation, 2007) wherein Consumer Redressal Forum has been created to state that the claimant ought to have approached the Consumer Redressal Forum for redressal for his grievances.

6. With regard to the first submission of the petitioner that the Permanant Lok Adalat has no jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition, relevant is to note that the Permanent Lok Adalats have been set up under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (in short 'the Act, 1987') in addition to and not in derogation of the forums provided under various statutes. The establishment of Permanent Lok Adalats and conferring them jurisdiction up to a specific pecuniary limit in respect of one or more public utility services as defined in Section 22-A(b) of the Act, 1987, before the dispute is brought before any Court by any party to the dispute, is an alternative institutional mechanism or arrangement made by the Parliament. In the case of Bar Council of India v. Union of India reported in (2012) 8 SCC 243, while turning down the challenge to the constitutionality of the Chapter VI-A brought in 1987 by 2002 Amendment Act, the Apex Court has observed in Paragraphs 22, 23, 24 and 25 as under:-

"22. Chapter VI-A inserted by the 2002 Amendment Act in 1987 Act, as its title suggests, provides for pre-litigation conciliation and settlement procedure. The disputes relating to public utility service like transport service for carriage of passengers or goods by air, road or water or postal, telegr