JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. With the consent of the counsel for the parties, the present writ petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal at this stage. 3. The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 22.02.2018 passed by learned Permanent Lok Adalat, Chittorgarh in P.L.A. Case No.40/2017 (Shankar Lal Vs AVVNL & Ors. 4. 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. 5. 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 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 Chhattisgarh 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. 6. 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 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. 7. (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. 7. 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. 8. 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. 9. 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 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. 10. 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. 10. 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. 11. 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. 12. 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. 12. 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. 13. In view of above discussion, the writ petition filed by the petitioners is dismissed being bereft of merit. 14. The record of the case be sent forthwith to the Permanent Lok Adalat, Chittorgarh for disbursement of the award.