- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 28.02.2007(Annexure-8) passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Jamshedpur, Singhbhum East in PLA Case No. 35 of 2006 which was preferred by the respondent No. 5, directing him to pay the amount of award of Rs. 2,25,000/- within two months failing which the same shall be realised alongwith interest @ 14% per annum in accordance with law.
(2.) The order impugned is challenged on behalf of the petitioner on the following ground:- (i) that the petitioner does work under the subcontract executed by the J.S.E.B. or J.U.S.C.O with the Respondent No. 3 and thus, petitioner does not fall under the Public Utility Service under Section 22A(b) of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987, as such the Permanent Lok Adalat has no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute. (ii) the Permanent Lok Adalat has to follow the procedure prescribed under Section 22(C)(4) to (7) of the Act and only upon failure of the parties to arrive at compromise and/or agree on the terms of settlement offered by the Permanent Lok Adalat to the rival parties, can proceed to adjudicate the dispute on merit, which has not been done in the present case. (iii) one of the grounds raised by the petitioner is that the instant cause of action lies under the provisions of Fatal Accident Act, 1855 wherein Section 1A provides that the family of a person can make a claim for loss occasioned to it by death or by actionable wrong, by invoking remedy of the suit; therefore, the instant proceeding was also without jurisdiction. (iv) that the accident on account of which the claimants have made the claim before the Permanent Lok Adalat also gave rise to a criminal case in which petitioner was made an accused and chargesheet was also submitted against him, therefore, under the provision of Section 22(C)(8) of the Legal Services Act, the Permanent Lok Adalat cannot decide the dispute as it is in relation to an offence.
(3.) According to the petitioner he was under an agreement with respondent No. 3, M/s. Subhash Projects and Marketing Ltd. for repair of certain electric conductor in connection with the work allotted to the respondent No. 3 by the Jharkhand State Electricity Board and J.U.S.C.O. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the private respondents have not impleaded the Jharkhand State Electricity Board and J.U.S.C.O. as party in their claim petition despite it being brought to the notice to the Permanent Lok Adalat in the written statement filed on behalf of the petitioner (Annexure-6).;