PLA Jurisdiction Under Sec 22-B & 22-C LSA Act Limited to Disputes 'Connected With' Public Utility Services, Not Tortious Claims by Non-Consumers: Rajasthan HC - 2025-04-04

Legal Articles | Court & Judgment Updates

Rajasthan High Court Clarifies Scope of Permanent Lok Adalat's Jurisdiction in Electrocution Case

Jodhpur, Rajasthan – The Rajasthan High Court, in a significant ruling, has set aside an award by the Permanent Lok Adalat (PLA) granting compensation for electrocution injuries, holding that the PLA's jurisdiction is confined to disputes "connected with" public utility services and does not extend to tortious liability claims by individuals not acting as consumers or users of such services. Hon'ble Mr. Justice MunnuriLaxman , in the judgment dated April 4, 2025, allowed the writ petition filed by Jodhpur Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Limited (JVVNL), challenging the PLA's award.

Case Background

The case originated from a claim filed by Suresh Kumar , who suffered severe injuries, including the amputation of an upper limb, due to electrocution while working as a lineman on a contract basis. He alleged that on the day of the accident, he climbed an electric pole to fix a fault after the electricity supply was supposedly turned off, but received an electric shock as the current was still flowing. He sought Rs. 30 lakhs in compensation from JVVNL (referred to as respondent No. 1 before PLA) and Subhash Bishnoi (respondent No. 2 before PLA), alleging negligence.

The Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Bikaner, in Application No. 223/2019, partly allowed the claim by its award dated June 13, 2023. It directed JVVNL to pay Suresh Kumar Rs. 20 lakhs with 6.5% annual interest, Rs. 3 lakhs for medical expenses, Rs. 1 lakh for mental agony, and Rs. 10,000 for legal expenses. JVVNL subsequently challenged this award before the High Court.

Key Arguments

Petitioner (Jodhpur Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Limited): * The dispute concerned tortious liability for injuries, not a matter related to "Public Utility Services" as per the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (the Act). * The applicant ( Suresh Kumar ) was neither a user nor a consumer of the electricity service in the context of the dispute; the issue arose from a contractual engagement. * The PLA exceeded its limited jurisdiction. * The procedure adopted by the PLA, relying solely on affidavit evidence without affording an opportunity for cross-examination, especially with seriously disputed facts, violated principles of fair play and natural justice.

Respondent No. 1 ( Suresh Kumar ): * The PLA has jurisdiction over all disputes involving providers of Public Utility Services, and the term "any party to the disputes" in Section 22-C of the Act is broad enough to include third parties like him. * The PLA is not bound by the Civil Procedure Code or the Indian Evidence Act (as per Section 22-D of the Act) and can determine its own procedure, making evidence by affidavit permissible.

Court's Analysis and Findings

The High Court meticulously examined the provisions of Chapter VI-A of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, particularly Sections 22-A (Definitions), 22-B (Establishment of Permanent Lok Adalats), and 22-C (Cognizance of cases by Permanent Lok Adalat).

On Jurisdiction: Justice Laxman emphasized that PLAs are established to exercise limited jurisdiction over disputes relating to one or more public utility services. The Court interpreted the phrase "any party to a dispute" under Section 22-C in the context of Section 22-B, which specifies jurisdiction "in respect of one or more public utility services."

The Court observed: > "The Permanent Lok Adalat can exercise jurisdiction in respect of disputes relating to, or with reference to, or connected with public utility services. The jurisdiction tribunal is limited and not plenary, as is the case with regular courts..."

Citing the Chhattisgarh High Court in Superintending Engineer CSEB Bilaspur Division , the Court held that the words "in respect of" mean "connected with." It reasoned that the legislative intent was to confer limited jurisdiction for "petty cases" concerning services between a provider and a user/consumer, not all disputes involving a public utility provider.

The Court respectfully disagreed with a broader interpretation by the Karnataka High Court in The Managing Director, HESCOM & Ors. Vs. Shri Nagappa Manneppa Naik & Ors. , stating: > "If broader interpretation is given, the limited jurisdiction would become unlimited jurisdiction, which was not the intention of the amendment. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the dispute raised in the present case is beyond the jurisdiction of the Permanent Lok Adalat. Furthermore, the dispute in present is not relating to one or more public utility services, and the injured is neither a user/consumer of such public utility services."

On Procedural Fairness and Cross-Examination: While acknowledging that Section 22-D of the Act exempts PLAs from the Civil Procedure Code and the Indian Evidence Act, the Court underscored that PLAs must still be guided by principles of natural justice, objectivity, and fair play.

Quoting the Supreme Court in K.L.Tripathi Vs. State Bank of India , the judgment noted: > "If the credibility of a person who has testified or given some information is in doubt, or if the version or the statement of the person who has testified, is, in dispute, right of cross- examination must inevitably for part of fair play in action..."

The High Court found that serious disputes existed regarding Suresh Kumar 's employment. In such circumstances, deciding the matter merely on affidavit evidence without allowing cross-examination to test the veracity of witnesses was deemed improper. > "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... Therefore, when conflicting claims are made by the applicant and the respondents with regard to the facts in issue, based on the affidavits, the right of cross- examination should be afforded."

Decision and Implications

The High Court concluded that the PLA had assumed jurisdiction not vested in it, as the dispute was essentially a tortious claim for personal injury by an individual who was not a consumer/user in the context of the specific dispute related to a public utility service . Additionally , the procedure adopted by the PLA in the face of conflicting factual claims was found to be unsustainable.

Consequently, the writ petition was allowed, and the award dated June 13, 2023, passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat was set aside. The Court granted Suresh Kumar the liberty to initiate proceedings before the appropriate civil court, directing that the period spent before the PLA and the High Court be considered for calculating the limitation period.

This judgment serves as a crucial reminder of the specific and limited nature of the Permanent Lok Adalat's jurisdiction, emphasizing that it is primarily intended for pre-litigation conciliation and settlement of disputes directly concerning public utility services between providers and their consumers/users, and not as a general forum for all claims against public utility entities, especially those involving complex factual disputes and tortious liabilities.