M.Y.EQBAL, J. - (1.) IN this application, the petitioner - M/s. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, has prayed for quashing the order and award dated 31.8.2005 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Dumka in Pre -Litigation Case No. 02 of 2005 whereby the Permanent Lok Adalat (in short referred to as 'Lok Adalat') allowed the petition filed by respondent No. 2 and directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 10000/ - as compensation and Rs. 2000/ - as litigation cost.
(2.) THE facts of the case lie in a narrow compass: Respondent No. 2 who is an employee of Civil Court, Dumka filed a Complaint Petition under Section 22(1) of the Legal Services Authority Act before the Permanent Lok Adalat, Dumka for compensation of Rs. 10000/ - and a cost of Rs. 2000/ - on the allegation that his Telephone No. 224605 was not functioning from 08.5.2005 to 02.6.2005. The said Complaint Petition was registered as Pre -Litigation Case No. 02 of 2005. In response to the notice, the petitioner filed show cause stating inter alia that Telephone No. 224605 of respondent No. 2 was lying out of order due to cable fault during the period 08.5.2005 to 02.6.2005. The said telephone connection was restored on 03.6.2005. The telephone remained out of order for the aforesaid period was due to technical ground of cable fault. The petitioner's further case was that as per the Departmental Rules, since the telephone being out of order, a rent rebate of Rs. 132/ - for the period of interruption had already been sanctioned to respondent No. 2 vide letter as contained in Memo dated 09.8.2005. Hence, respondent No. 2 was adequately compensated for the technical fault. The Lok Adalat, after hearing the parties, vide order dated 31.8.2005 allowed the complaint petition filed by respondent No. 2 and directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 10000/ - as compensation and Rs. 2000/ - as cost within a period of one month. The impugned award was assailed by the petitioner mainly on the ground that the order and award passed by the Lok Adalat is wholly without jurisdiction and is bad in law. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Lok Adalat has committed error of law and has exceeded its jurisdiction in passing the order of compensation and cost as the Permanent Lok Adalat has no jurisdiction under the Legal Services Authority Act to pass order of compensation. Learned Counsel further submitted that the Lok Adalat has not correctly followed the provisions as envisaged under Section 22 -C(5) of the Act, inasmuch as the basic purpose of the Act is to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties to the dispute. Learned Counsel submitted that as per the Telegraph Rule, a rebate of Rs. 132/ - was allowed for the period 8.5.2005 to 02.6.2005 during which the telephone of respondent No. 2 was out of order due to cable fault and as such, he was adequately compensated by the petitioner.
(3.) ON the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents supported the order on the ground that the Lok Adalat has all jurisdiction to decide the case on merits and to award compensation in case where there is deficiency of services.;