LAWS(JHAR)-2008-7-29

BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

Decided On July 29, 2008
BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED Appellant
V/S
STATE OF JHARKHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(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.

(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.