Manoj Kumar Gupta ORDER
Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.
1. Whether Permanent Lok Adalat has jurisdiction to grant compensation to the dependents of a victim of electrocution, who died as a result of live 11000 KVA high tension line falling on him and whether the compensation awarded in the instant case is excessive and arbitrary, are the questions which arise for consideration in the instant petition.
2. On 22.04.2009 Subhash Yadav, husband of the second respondent and the father of the third to fifth respondents, while going to drop one Smt. Manju d/o Shiv Poojan at her in-laws house on a motorcycle, died of electrocution on coming into contact with live 11000 KVA high tension line near village Majhaura. The current was of such high intensity that even the motorcycle got burnt. Manju, the pillion rider was severely injured and was admitted to a hospital. On the same date, at 11.00 a.m., a first information report was lodged at Police Station Harpur, Budhhat, District Gorakhpur. A post mortem was conducted by the Police also on the same date, which discloses the cause of death to be electrocution. At the time of death, he was 30 years of age and was earning Rs. 5000/- per month. According to the claimants, they were assured by the electricity department that a sum of Rs. 2 lakh will be paid as compensation. Out of it, a sum of Rs. 50,000/- was paid to them on 18.7.2009 provisionally and the remaining amount was assured to be paid after completing certain formalities. However, when further amount was not paid, the dependents of the deceased got compelled to approach the Permanent Lok Adalat, raising claim for payment of compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs with interest at the rate of 15% per annum and a further sum of Rs. 1 lakh for financial, physical and mental agony and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation expenses.
3. The U.P. Power Corporation Limited and Poorvanchal Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Limited contested the proceedings by filing objections, inter alia, alleging that a sum of Rs. 50,000/- was paid as compensation to the claimants and thus, the petition now filed for payment of more amount as compensation is not maintainable and is barred by provisions of res-judicata; that the incident took place because of the negligence of the deceased; that the dispute raised in the petition is beyond the jurisdiction of the Permanent Lok Adalat; that the petition is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties; it is barred by limitation and deserves to be dismissed with exemplary costs.
4. The Permanent Lok Adalat held that the dispute relates to supply of power, which is a 'public utility service' and thus the claim made in that regard, was amenable to the jurisdiction of the Permanent Lok Adalat; that the U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. failed to show how the petition was bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties; that there was no adjudication of the dispute by any court of law and thus, the plea of res-judicata is not at all attracted; that the claim made was well within the limitation; that the plea that the victim was guilty of negligence, is contrary to the admitted fact that the department itself had paid Rs. 50,000/- as compensation; and that award of Rs. 50,000/- to the claimants is not a just and fair compensation and they are entitled to an additional amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- alongwith 9% interest from the date of the award until payment is made.
5. The Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division II, one of the parties in the case before the Permanent Lok Adalat, has approached this court by filing instant petition challenging the award of the Permanent Lok Adalat passed on 8.01.2013.
6. It is vehemently urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Permanent Lok Adalat is only empowered to settle disputes by conciliation and was not having any jurisdiction to decide the case on merits. Elaborating his submission, it was urged that once the petitioner had disputed the claim of the respondents on merits, it was not within the power and jurisdiction of the Permanent Lok Adalat to proceed to decide the dispute on merits. In this regard, reliance has been placed on a judgment ........