BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. (petitioner herein) was the opposite party before the District Forum.

          Facts in brief are that the respondent/complainant filed the complaint with the allegation that he was given electric connection vide K.No.2550L5290077.  He was being sent provisional bills after levying late fee and penalty on those bills since 1998.  Office of the respondent had to be approached for the correction of the bills but without any success.  That he had also approached the Bijli Lok Adalat constituted under Section 22 of the Legal Services Authorities Act. 

The petitioner, on being noticed, put in appearance and filed its written statement.  According to him, the complainant was a regular defaulter in payment of bills and therefore arrears had accumulated.  It was also stated that Permanent Lok Adalat, vide its order dated 24.3.2000, granted to the complainant the relief of exemption from LPSC (Late Payment Sur Charge) and a revised bill of Rs.25,847.30 was issued to the complainant in March 2000 but nothing was paid by the complainant.  Petitioner was silent as to the raising of the provisional bills. 

          Both the parties led their evidence by way of affidavits.  Main plea taken by the petitioner was that the complainant having approached the Permanent Lok Adalat under Section 22 of Legal Services Authorities Act could not be permitted to file a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act. 

          The District Forum did not accept this plea and allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to revise the bills once again and charge at actual reading without any LPSC.

          Aggrieved by this, the petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission, which has been dismissed by the impugned order.

          Counsel for the petitioner contends that after the judgment given by the Permanent Lok Adalat, the respondent was debarred from filing the complaint under the Consumer Protection Act.  In support of this submission, the petitioner has relied upon a judgement of the Supreme Court in P.T. Thomas vs. Thomas Job – AIR 2005 SC 3575 which is equivalent to (2005)6 SCC 478.  As against this, counsel for the respondent/complainant supports the judgement given by the fora below.  Supreme Court of India in para-19 of P.T. Thomas case (supra) has observed as under :

“19. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that, in Board of Trustees on the Port of Visakhapatnam v. Presiding Officer, Permanent, Lok Adalat-cum-Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Visakhapatnam & Anr. reported in MANU/APPELLANT0621/2000 : 2000 (5) ALD682, “The award is enforceable as a decree and it is final.  In all fours, the endeavour is only to see that the disputes are narrowed down and make the final settlement so that the parties are not again driven to further litigation or any dispute.  Though the award of a Lok Adalat is not a result of a contest on merits just as a regular suit by a Court on a regular suit by a Court on a regular trial, however, it is as equal and on par with a decree on compromise and will have the same binding effect and conclusive just as the decree passed on the compromises cannot be challenged in a regular appeal, the awsard of the Lok Adalat being akin to the same, cannot be challenged by any regular remedies available under law including invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the correctness of the award on any ground  judicial review cannot be invoked in such awards especially on the grounds as raised in this writ petition.” (emphasis supplied)

          A perusal of this would show that the Supreme Court has held that the order passed by the Lok Adalat is at par with a decree on compromise and will have the same binding effect and conclusive just as the decree passed on the compromise.  Award of Lok Adalat being equivalent to the same cannot be challenged by any other regular remedies available under law including invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the correctness of the award on any ground.  That judicial review could not be invoked in such awards.

          It is not disputed before us that the respondent had approached the Permanent Lok Adalat and the Permanent Lok Adalat did not give any relief other than waiving the LPSC.  After award of the Lok Adalat, the respondent was debarred from re-agitating for the same relief in any other forum. 

          In view of the judgement of the Supreme Court of India, which we respectfully follow, the Revision Petition is accepted.  Orders passed by the fora below are set aside and the complaint is ordered to be dismissed.  There shall be no order as to costs.