AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, C.J.—The petitioners, Punjab State Electricity Board (P.S.E.B.), seek to raise legal issue about the scope and ambit of the exercise of adjudicatory powers under The Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as ''the said Act''). The factual matrix relates to the unfortunate incident of electrocution of the late husband of respondent No. 3 Sh. Sher Singh @ Shera Singh. The said respondent No. 3 filed an application u/s 22(C) of the said Act before the Permanent Lok Adalat to take cognizance of the case. It is alleged in the application that due to the negligence, careless attitude of the P.S.E.B., there was instantaneous death on electrocution of the deceased which also amounts to deficiency in service. The deceased came in contact with a hanging PVC electric wire let loose passing over the field about five or six feet over and above the ground of the agricultural land owned by him. The accident is stated to have occurred at 4 P.M. on 25.10.2006 when Late Sh. Sher Singh was sowing wheat in his field on tractor. The electric wire is stated to be uninsulated and unprotected at a number of joints, cracks/cuttings and no adequate protection was afforded to the passers-by to the field/land. The electric supply to the field is stated to have been maintained and supervised by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Baadshahur Operation Sub-Division, Punjab under the Divisional Control of Executive Engineer, Samana. The deceased was only 35 years of age and left behind his widow and children aged 13 and 10 years old. The deceased had a regular electricity connection. A duty is stated to be cast on the P.S.E.B. to maintain service/transmission lines which they failed to perform.
The application was contested by the petitioners before us whereby the burden was sought to be shifted for negligence to one Sh. Som Nath son of Sh. Labh Ram who had taken the domestic supply connection for his Dera situated on the agricultural land. It is alleged that he was using the supply for 24 hours illegally by committing mal-practices. When Late Sh. Sher Singh was sowing seeds of wheat crops in his field, he endeavored to raise the height of PVC wire by the help of the rod while sitting on his tractor which caused the accident.
The parties filed their respective affidavits.
On analysis of the material on record, since the conciliation proceedings did not succeed, the Permanent Lok Adalat found in favour of the applicant while quantifying the award of damages to the tune of Rs. 8 lacs vide the award dated 31.01.2007.
It is the aforesaid award, which is sought to be assailed in the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petition was admitted on 14.01.2008 while stay was specifically declined. The amount is stated to have already been paid to the legal heirs of the deceased.
Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that though it may be an unfortunate incident and undisputedly, the family members of Late Sh. Sher Singh had suffered on account of his demise, the blame should not be laid on the petitioners as the one, who was responsible for the same, should be made to pay i.e. Sh. Som.Nath. The second limb of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners arises from the scope and ambit of Section 22(C) of the said Act as it is his contention that there must be an element of settlement of the dispute, which should give rise to the jurisdiction for the Permanent Lok Adalat to take cognizance of the matter and the adjudication in the form of a decision of the dispute u/s 22(C)(8) of the said Act would only follow if no resolution was possible despite the element of settlement. It is thus, his contention that the present case has no element of settlement as there was extreme posture of both sides.
In so far as the legal principle raised in the second limb of submission is concerned, it is no doubt true that the recourse to provisions of Section 22(C)(8) of the said Act would only arise in sequitur to the invocation of the earlier Sub-sections of that Section. The provision reads as under:--
22(C) Cognizance of cases by Permanent Lok Adalat.-
(1) Any party to a dispute may, before the dispute is brought before any court, make an application to the Permanent Lok Adalat for the settlement of dispute:
Provided that the Permanent Lok Adalat shall not have jurisdiction in respect of any matter relating to an offence not compoundable under any law:
Provided further that the Permanent Lok Adalat shall also not have jurisdiction in the matter where the value of the property in dispute exceeds ten lakh rupees:
Provided also that the Central Government, may, by notification, increase the limit of ten lakh rupees specified in the second proviso in consultation with the Central Authority.
(2) After an application is made under Sub-section (1) to the Permanent Lok Adalat, no party to that application shall invoke jurisdiction of any court in the same dispute.
(3) Where an application is made to a Permanent Lok Adalat under Sub-section (1), it-
(a) shall direct each party to the application to file before it a written statement, stating therein the facts and nature of dispute under the application points or issues in such dispute and grounds relied in support of, or in opposition to, such points or issues, as the case may be, and such party may supplement such statement with any document and other evidence which such party deems appropriate in proof of such facts and grounds and shall send a copy of such statement together with a copy of such document and other evidence, if any, to each of the parties to the application;
(b) may require any party to the application to file additional statement before it at any stage of the conciliation proceedings;
(c) shall communicate any document or statement received by it from any party to the application to the other party, to enable such other party to present reply thereto.
(4) When statement, additional statement and reply, if any, have been filed under Sub-section (3), to the satisfaction of the Permanent Lok Adalat, it shall conduct conciliation proceedings between the parties to the application in such manner as it thinks appropriate taking into account the circumstances of the dispute.
(5) The Permanent Lok Adalat shall, during conduct of conciliation proceedings under Sub-section (4), assist the parties in their attempt to reach an amicable settlement of the dispute in an independent and impartial manner.
(6) It shall be the duty of every party to the application to cooperate in good faith with the Permanent Lok Adalat in conciliation of the dispute relating to the application and to comply with the direction of the Permanent Lok Adalat to produce evidence and other related documents before it.
(7) When a Permanent Lok Adalat, in the aforesaid conciliation proceedings, is of opinion that there exist elements of settlement in such proceedings which may be acceptable to the parties, it may formulate the terms of a possible settlement of the dispute and give to the parties concerned for their observations and in case the parties reach at an agreement on the settlement of the dispute, they shall sign the settlement agreement and the Permanent Lok Adalat shall pass an award in terms thereof and furnish a copy of the same to each of the parties concerned.
(8) Where the parties fail to reach at an agreement under Sub-section (7), the Permanent Lok Adalat shall, if the dispute does not relate to any offence, decide the dispute.
The aforesaid provision recognizes the right of any party to the dispute to make an application to the Permanent Lok Adalat. It is thus an unfettered right subject to the three provisos to Sub-section (1). As to how an application has to be handled thereafter is contained in Sub-section (3) to Sub-section (7) of Section 22 of the said Act. The pleadings and documents are required to be filed and thereafter, the conciliation proceedings are to be held to endeavor to reach an amicable settlement of the dispute. The question of invocation of Sub-section (8) of Section 22(C) of the said Act would arise only when no agreement is possible under Sub-section (C). The objective is thus, clear that in cases where there is an element of settlement possible, it may actually resolve any dispute and result in settlement or it may not result in any settlement. In situation where no settlement takes place, there is an avenue available to the Permanent Lok Adalat to decide the dispute on merits. The scope and ambit of the exercise of such adjudicatory powers by the Permanent Lok Adalat has been discussed in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ajay Sinha and Another, . The relevant discussion, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, is contained in paras 27 to 30 which are reproduced hereunder:--
Sub-section (1) of Section 22-C speaks of settlement of disputes. The authority has to take recourse to conciliation mechanism. One of the essential ingredients of the conciliation proceeding is that nobody shall be forced to take part therein. It has to be voluntary in nature. The proceedings are akin to one of the recognized A.D.R. mechanism which is made of Medola. It may be treated on a par with conciliation and arbitration. In such a case the parties agree for settlement of dispute by negotiation, conciliation or mediation. The proceedings adopted are not binding ones, whereas the arbitration is a binding procedure. Even in relation to arbitration, an award can be the subject-matter of challenge. The provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 shall apply thereto. The jurisdiction in terms of Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is wide. The court in exercise of the said jurisdiction may not enter into the merit of the case but would be entitled to consider as to whether the arbitrator was guilty of misconduct. If he is found to be biased, his award would be set aside. The scope of voluntary settlement through the mechanism of conciliation is also limited. If the parties in such a case can agree to come to settlement in relation to the principal issues, no exception can be taken thereto as the parties have a right of self determination of the forum, which shall help them to resolve the conflict, but when it comes to some formal differences between the parties, they may leave the matter to the jurisdiction of the conciliator. The conciliator only at the final stage of the proceedings would adopt the role of an arbitrator.
Here, however, the Permanent Lok Adalat does not simply adopt the role of an arbitrator whose award could be the subject-matter of challenge but also the role of an adjudicator. Parliament has given the authority to the Permanent Lok Adalat to decide the matter. It has an adjudicating role to play.
The validity of the said provision is not in question. But then construction of such a provision must be given in such a manner so as to make it prima facie reasonable. With that end in view let us consider the meaning of the word "relating to an offence". We will assume that in a given case the dispute between the service provider and the service recipient may not have anything to do with the ultimate result of the criminal case but there are cases and cases.
In this case, as noticed above, the genuineness of the claim itself is in dispute. Where the parties have taken extreme positions, the same prima facie may not be the subject-matter of conciliation which provides for a nonbinding settlement.
What has been stated aforesaid is also what we have discussed earlier i.e. the right of Permanent Lok Adalat to decide a dispute where conciliation proceedings have not matured into a settlement.
The caution extended is that where parties have taken extreme positions, the same prima-facie may not be suitable subject matter for conciliation which provides for a non-binding settlement and in such cases, recourse to Sub-section (8) of Section 22(C) of the said Act is not warranted.
It is under the scope of the aforesaid unexceptionable legal principles that we have to examine the facts of the present case.
The supply of electricity by the petitioner No. 1-P.S.E.B. is not in dispute. That electrocution resulted in the death of Late Sh. Sher Singh is really not disputable. The anguish caused to his family members and his loved ones again is not in dispute. However, the burden of making the payment for damages is sought to be shifted oh to Sh. Som Nath, who is stated to be ah offender who took the illegal electricity connection by tapping the wires which, it is pleaded, caused the death of Late Sh. Sher Singh.
In our view, it not permissible for the petitioners to absolve themselves of the responsibility and liability since they are principal supplier of electricity. If there is an unauthorized supply of energy from which illegal tapping takes place, the officers at the ground level are duty bound to take remedial measures. The condition of the wires, as stated above, clearly shows that the wires had been in existence for a quite a long period of time. Thus, if illegal tapping was going on, the process was on for some time and under the nose and eyes of the representatives of the petitioners. It is. not necessary that a direct connection must cause damages but even in-action to perform the statutory duties which may cause such consequence would result in the liability being affixed on petitioner No. 1 at least qua the suffering party. If petitioner No. 1 is of the view that Sh. Som Nath has contributed to the same, petitioner No. 1 can always establish its case against Sh. Som Nath as a consequence of the liability affixed on petitioner No. 1 by the death of Sh. Sher Singh by initiating appropriate legal proceedings in accordance with law for recovery of that amount and establishing its case in those proceedings.
We are also unable to accept the plea of the learned counsel for the petitioners that such an application was wrongly maintained by the Permanent Lok Adalat. It cannot be said at the threshold that there was no element of settlement in this case, in fact any party to such a dispute can prefer an application before the Permanent Lok Adalat. Since the electricity connection had been provided by petitioner No. 1, naturally the Permanent Lok Adalat made the endeavor to have an agreed amount being paid to the legal heirs of Late Sh. Sher Singh who died as a consequence of the electrocution where the electricity was being supplied by the petitioner No. 1. The dispute really related to the fact as to whether there was any wire of petitioner No. 1 or whether Som Nath had taken an illegal electric connection, against which no action was taken by the representatives of petitioner No. 1, which caused death of Late Sh. Sher Singh.
We need not emphasize that on facts, it is an unfortunate case where the deceased passed away at the young age leaving behind not only his widow but two minor children and the amount of compensation of Rs. 8 lacs computed by the impugned order on the basis set out therein can hardly be said to be excessive in the given facts of the case. The petition is accordingly, dismissed for the aforesaid reasons leaving the parties to bear their own costs.