ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KSEB Vs. CONSIMER VIGILANCE CENTRE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners herein are the respondents in O.P.No.510/2007 on the file of the Permanent Lok Adalat (for short PLA) at Thiruvananthapuram. The respondents herein filed a complaint before the Permanent Lok Adalat for the damages allegedly caused to some of their electrical devices due to over-voltage flow of electricity through the electric line under Electrical Sec. , Vattiyoorkavu on 07/07/2007. Even though 07/07/07 is a beautiful date, according to the respondents it was a fateful day to them. The Permanent Lok Adalat considered the matter and passed an award as evident by Exhibit P6. It is mentioned in the award passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat that conciliation proceedings were arranged and initially the respondents before the PLA expressed willingness to settle the dispute. But later they have withdrawn from participating in the conciliation. In such circumstances, the Permanent Lok Adalat decided the dispute as per Sec. 22C(8) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987(for short 'the Act 1987'). Accordingly, Ext.P6 award is passed. Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition is filed.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel for respondents 1, 2, 14, 15, and 20. There is no appearance for the other respondents.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the award passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat is vitiated because it violates the mandates in Sec. 22C of the Act 1987. The learned counsel takes me through Sec. 22C of the Act 1987 and submitted that no attempt is made by the Permanent Lok Adalat to conciliate the matter before deciding the dispute. The learned Standing counsel after getting instructions from the petitioners submitted that there was no attempt on the part of the petitioners to withdraw from the conciliation as stated in Ext.P6 award. The learned counsel also takes me through the award and argued the case on merit also to convince the court that the award is unsustainable. The learned counsel submitted that the award passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat is without any evidence to show that there is a deficiency of service in public utility service. The learned counsel submitted that Ext.P6 award is unsustainable.