Permanent Lok Adalat Lacks Jurisdiction in Electrocution Compensation Claims from Non-Consumers: Rajasthan High Court - 2025-04-14

Rajasthan High Court Sets Aside Lok Adalat Award in Electrocution Case, Citing Jurisdictional Limits

Jodhpur, Rajasthan – In a significant judgment, the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur has overturned an award granted by the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Bikaner, in an electrocution compensation case. Justice Munnuri Laxman, presiding over the S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14696/2023, ruled that the Permanent Lok Adalat exceeded its jurisdiction by entertaining a claim from an individual who was not a consumer of the public utility service, Jodhpur Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Limited (JVVNL).

Background of the Case

The case arose from an incident where Suresh Kumar, a contract lineman, sustained severe injuries, including amputation of an upper limb, due to electrocution while working on an electric pole. Kumar was employed by a contractor engaged by JVVNL. He filed a claim with the Permanent Lok Adalat seeking Rs. 30 lakhs in compensation, alleging negligence by JVVNL and the contractor. The Lok Adalat partly allowed the claim, awarding Rs. 20 lakhs as compensation and additional amounts for medical and legal expenses, totaling over Rs. 24 lakhs.

JVVNL challenged this award in the High Court, arguing that the Lok Adalat lacked jurisdiction as the dispute was not related to "Public Utility Services" in the context of consumer-service provider relationships and involved tortious liability. They contended that Kumar, as an employee of a contractor, was neither a user nor a consumer of their services.

Arguments Before the High Court

Petitioner (JVVNL) Arguments:

Mr. Bhavit Sharma, representing JVVNL, argued that the dispute fell outside the purview of Public Utility Services as defined under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. He emphasized that the Permanent Lok Adalat's jurisdiction is limited to disputes concerning services between providers and consumers, not tortious liabilities arising from contractual engagements. Counsel further argued that the procedure adopted by the Lok Adalat, relying solely on affidavit evidence without cross-examination in a case with disputed facts, violated principles of natural justice and fair play.

Respondent (Suresh Kumar) Arguments:

Mr. Aman Bishnoi, representing Suresh Kumar, countered that the Legal Services Authorities Act grants the Permanent Lok Adalat jurisdiction over "any party to a dispute" related to public utility services. He argued for a broader interpretation of "any party," including third parties affected by the service provider’s actions, not just consumers. He also defended the Lok Adalat's procedure, citing Section 22-D of the Act, which exempts the Lok Adalat from being bound by the Civil Procedure Code and the Indian Evidence Act, allowing it to be guided by principles of natural justice.

Court's Reasoning and Decision

Justice Laxman meticulously examined the provisions of the Legal Services Authorities Act, particularly Sections 22-A, 22-B, and 22-C, which define Public Utility Services and the jurisdiction of Permanent Lok Adalats. The court emphasized the legislative intent behind establishing Permanent Lok Adalats – to provide a pre-litigation mechanism for resolving disputes related to public utility services efficiently, primarily concerning service providers and consumers.

Referencing the High Court of Chhattisgarh's ruling in Superintending Engineer CSEB Bilaspur Division & Ors. Vs. Public Utility Permanent Lok Adlat, Bilaspur & Ors. , the Rajasthan High Court agreed that the jurisdiction of Permanent Lok Adalats is limited and not plenary. The phrase "in respect of one or more public utility services" was interpreted to mean disputes "connected with" or "relating to" such services, implying a service-provider and service-recipient relationship.

The court explicitly disagreed with a Karnataka High Court judgment that broadened the interpretation of "any party" to include third parties beyond consumers. Justice Laxman stated that such a wide interpretation would "convert the limited jurisdiction into unlimited jurisdiction," which was not the legislature's intention.

Furthermore, addressing the procedural fairness aspect, the High Court acknowledged that while the Evidence Act is not applicable to Lok Adalat proceedings, principles of natural justice must still be upheld. Citing K.L.Tripathi Vs. State Bank of India , the court noted that cross-examination becomes crucial when factual disputes are significant and credibility is in question. In this case, where the employment of the applicant and the circumstances of the accident were disputed, the Lok Adalat erred in deciding based solely on affidavits without allowing cross-examination to test veracity.

> "In the present case, affidavits from each party have been filed. Without affording any opportunity to cross examine such witness how Tribunal will weigh the evidence of affidavits submitted by each party. When conflicting evidence is presented by the applicant and the respondents, in the absence of an opportunity to test the veracity of such witnesses, it is improper for a presiding office to give weightage to one affidavit and exclude weightage to other affidavit." - Justice Munnuri Laxman

Conclusion and Implications

Ultimately, the Rajasthan High Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the award of the Permanent Lok Adalat. The court granted Suresh Kumar the liberty to pursue his compensation claim in a civil court with appropriate jurisdiction, ensuring the time spent in the High Court would be considered for limitation purposes.

This judgment clarifies the jurisdictional limits of Permanent Lok Adalats concerning public utility services, emphasizing that their primary focus is on disputes between service providers and consumers. It also underscores the importance of procedural fairness and the necessity of cross-examination in Lok Adalat proceedings when factual disputes are substantial and evidence is contested. The ruling serves as a significant precedent for future cases involving compensation claims against public utility service providers and the scope of ADR mechanisms.