Avvnl Ajmer And Ors vs Shankar Lal And Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 9986 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR.

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6326/2018

1. Ajmer Vidhyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd. Through The Assistant Engineer, Ajmer, Vidhyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd. Rashami, Tehsil Rashami, District Chittorgarh.

2. Ajmer Vidhyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd. Through The Superintending Engineer, Ajmer Vidhyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd., Industrial Area, Chanderia, District Chittorgarh.

3. Ajmer Vidhyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd. Through The Managing Director, Ajmer Vidhyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd., Hathipata, Ajmer.

----Petitioners Versus

1. Shankar Lal S/o Shri Hajari Ji, B/c Jat, Profession-

Farming, R/o Uncha Through Next Friend Brother Shambu Lal S/o Shri Hajari Ji, B/c Jat, Aged 40 Years. R/o Uncha, Tehsil Rashami, District Chittorgarh.

2. District Permanent Lok Adalat, Pratapgarh, District Chittorgarh, Rajasthan.

                                                                   ----Respondents



For Petitioner(s)          :     Mr. Dhanesh Saraswat.
For Respondent(s)          :     Mr. Manish Kumar Pitaliya.


         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
                          Order

01/08/2022

     Heard learned counsel for the parties.

With the consent of the counsel for the parties, the present

writ petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal at this

stage.

The present writ petition has been filed against the order

dated 22.02.2018 passed by learned Permanent Lok Adalat,

(2 of 6) [CW-6326/2018]

Chittorgarh in P.L.A. Case No.40/2017 (Shankar Lal Vs AVVNL &

Ors.

Brief facts necessary to be noted in the present case are that

on 12.08.2016, the respondent No.1 suffered burn injuries on

account of the breaking of 11000 KV electric line of the petitioners

passing over his agricultural field. The respondent No.1 preferred

an application before the Permanent Lok- Adalat, Chittorgarh for

grant of claim against the petitioners on account of the injuries

suffered by him because of electrocution. Learned Permanent Lok-

Adalat, Chittorgarh after framing of the issues and adducing the

evidence on record came to the conclusion that the petitioners are

responsible for the injuries caused to the respondent No.1

Shankar Lal and awarded a sum of Rs.10,76,697/-(Rupees Ten Lac

Seventy Six Thousand Six hundred Ninety Seven only) in favour of

respondent No.1 vide its order dated 22.02.2018.

Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently submits

before this court that learned Permanent Lok Adalat, Chittorgarh

has committed an error while awarding a huge amount of

compensation against the petitioners without properly adjudicating

the matter in issue. He submits that no conciliation proceedings

had taken place as per clause 7 of section 22 (C) of the Legal

Service Authority Act, 1987 and the case has been decided on

merit by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Chittorgarh. Learned counsel

further submits that it was specifically submitted before the

Permanent Lok Adalat that immediately on getting the information

about the breaking of the wire of 11000 KV electric line over the

agricultural field of respondent No.1, two persons namely Subhash

Chandra, Junior Engineer & Bhanwar Singh, Lineman went to the

site on the very next day and found that the electric line passing

(3 of 6) [CW-6326/2018]

over the field of respondent No.1 was not in the broken condition

and flow of electricity in the same was also proper. Learned

counsel further submits that the accident has not occurred on

account of breaking of electric wires of the petitioners passing

through the agricultural field of the respondent No.1 and

therefore, the petitioners cannot be held liable to pay any

compensation to the respondent No.1 on account of injuries

suffered by him. The counsel submits that the statements of

Subhash Chandra, Junior Engineer and Bhanwar Singh, Lineman

recorded in the departmental inquiry were produced before the

Permanent Lok Adalat to satisfy that the electric line passing over

the field of respondent No.1 was in a perfect condition. To buttress

his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the

judgment of Chhatisgarh High Court rendered in the case of

Superintending Engineer, CSEB Bilaspur Division and Ors. V/s

Public Utility Permanent Lok Adalat, Bilaspur and Ors. on

13.04.2011. He prays that the writ petition filed by the petitioners

may be allowed and the order dated 22.02.2018 passed by

learned Permanent Lok Adalat, Chittorgarh may be quashed and

set aside.

Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of

respondent No.1 submits that undisputed facts in the present case

are that:-

(i) Electric Line of 11000 KV is passing over the agricultural field

of respondent No.1.

(ii) As per the injury report, the respondent No.1 has suffered

the burn injuries on account of electrocution.

(iii) The statements of witnesses namely Rattu Bairwa and

Kishan were placed before the Permanent Lok Adalat, Chittorgarh

(4 of 6) [CW-6326/2018]

supporting the fact of respondent No.1 having sustained the

injuries in the accident because of breaking of the wire of electric

line of 11000 KV of the petitioners.

(iv) The GSS register maintained by the petitioners showing

disruption of electricity has not been produced before the

Permanent Lok Adalat.

(v) The affidavits of Subhash Chandra, Junior Engineer and

Bhanwar Singh, Lineman who inspected the site on the very next

day have not been produced before the Permanent Lok Adalat.

On these facts, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has

submitted that since learned Permanent Lok Adalat has

appreciated the facts in detail and keeping in mind the provisions

of section 22 (D) of the Act of 1987, learned Permanent Lok

Adalat reached to the conclusion that the injuries suffered by the

respondent No.1 were on account of breaking of the wires of

11000 KV electric line belonging to the petitioners, the

compensation has rightly been awarded by learned Permanent Lok

Adalat, Chittorgarh and therefore, no interference is warranted by

this court in the order dated 22.02.2018 passed by the Permanent

Lok Adalat, Chittorgarh.

I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and

gone through the relevant record of the case including the order

dated 22.02.2018 passed by Permanent Lok Adalat.

The undisputed facts which emerge in the present case are

that the agricultural land of respondent No.1 is situated beneath

the 11000 KV electric line of the petitioners and the respondent

No.1 had suffered the burn injuries on account of electrocution.

Learned Permanent Lok Adalat, Chittorgarh after elaborately

discussing the facts brought before it has come to the conclusion

(5 of 6) [CW-6326/2018]

that the respondent No.1 suffered the injuries on account of

breaking the wire of 11000 KV electric line of the petitioners and

while adjudicating the dispute as per section 22 (D) of the Act of

1987, it has taken into consideration the affidavit filed by injured

as well as affidavits of Kishan Lal Jat, Rattu Bairwa and Nana Lal

Bairwa in support of injuries suffered by the respondent No.1.

This court while taking into consideration the provisions of

section 22 of the Act of 1987 note that as per sub clause 8 of

section 22 (C) of the Act of 1987, if conciliation proceedings are

not successful then the Permanent Lok Adalat can resolve the

dispute while considering the merits of the case. In the present

case, since the parties failed to reach any agreement, learned

Permanent Lok Adalat has decided the case on merits in

accordance with clause 8 of section 22 (C) of the Act of 1987. The

argument of learned counsel for the petitioners that there is no

order sheet about any agreement/disagreement of the petitioners,

the same is noted to be rejected only on the ground that had

there been any agreement, there would have been no question for

resorting to clause 8 of section 22 (C) of the Act of 1987, much

less, the parties have joined the issue on merit and therefore, it

cannot be said at this stage that since disagreement of the

petitioners was not recorded, therefore, the Permanent Lok Adalat

was not within its jurisdiction to decide the case on merits. As far

as contention of the petitioners with regard to the award passed

by learned Permanent Lok Adalat is concerned, this court finds

that learned Permanent Lok Adalat has scanned the entire

evidence produced before it threadbare and correctly reached to

the conclusion that the accident occurred on account of failure of

the petitioners in maintaining the electric line in proper condition.

(6 of 6) [CW-6326/2018]

This court also finds that two persons namely Subhash Chandra,

Junior Engineer and Bhanwar Singh, Lineman who inspected the

accidental site have not appeared before the Permanent Lok

Adalat by filing their affidavits, merely their statements recorded

by the petitioners in the departmental inquiry have been

produced, therefore, it cannot be said with certainty that no such

accident had taken place. The evidence produced by the

respondent No.1 in the form of affidavits has not been disputed by

the petitioners. Even a perusal of the injury report of injured

respondent No.1 Shankar Lal shows that the injuries sustained by

him are because of electrocution. The judgment of Chhattishgarh

High Court (supra) relied upon by learned counsel for the

petitioners has no application in the present set of facts and is

clearly distinguishable.

Therefore, in view of overall consideration of the matter and

noticing the fact that learned Permanent Lok Adalat has complied

with the provisions of section 22 (D) of the Act of 1987 in reaching

its conclusion, the compensation awarded in favour of respondent

No.1 in the present case requires no interference by this court.

The order dated 22.02.2018 has been passed by learned

Permanent Lok Adalat, Chittorgarh on correct appreciation of

evidence and facts brought before it.

In view of above discussion, the writ petition filed by the

petitioners is dismissed being bereft of merit.

The record of the case be sent forthwith to the Permanent

Lok Adalat, Chittorgarh for disbursement of the award.

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J 20-AnilSingh/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)