***

SUVIR SEHGAL, J. –

1. This petition has been filed inter alia for issuance of a writ, in the nature of certiorari, for quashing award dated 09.05.2024 as well as order dated 24.04.2025 (Annexures P-3 and P-4 respectively) passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Service), U.T. Chandigarh (for short “the Lok Adalat”).

2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was on duty with the Electricity Department, when a transformer fell and he fractured his leg. Counsel states that petitioner was hospitalized on 01.07.2016 and was operated upon on 04.07.2016. Despite being discharged from the hospital on 12.07.2016, petitioner was unable to walk properly and repeatedly visited the hospital complaining of pain. Counsel contends that the X-ray report revealed that there was a non-union and a gap of 1 mm. Counsel emphasizes that petitioner applied for a disability certificate but the application was rejected vide Annexure P-2 as the disability was less than 40%. Counsel asserts that the botched surgery was on account of the negligence of the operating doctor-respondent No.4 and that both the hospital as well as respondent No.4 are liable to compensate the petitioner. Counsel urges that application filed by the petitioner under Section 22-C of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (for short “the Act of 1987”) has been erroneously rejected by the Lok Adalat vide impugned award (Annexure P-3) and an application to recall this order, has been dismissed by the impugned order (Annexure P-4) without appreciating the factual position.

3. I have heard counsel for the parties and considered their respective submissions, besides examining the documents appended with the paper-book.

4. The conceded position is that the petitioner was admitted in GMCH-16, Chandigarh-respondent No.3 in July, 2016 and he was operated upon within a few days. He was discharged from the hospital on 12.07.2016 and, as per his stand, he repeatedly visited the hospital over the next six months for follow-up. Claiming compensation of Rs.1 crore, petitioner approached the Lok Adalat by filing an application under Section 22-C of the Act of 1987 on 10.08.2022. The cause of action arose to the petitioner in the year 2016, however, he has invoked the jurisdiction of the Lok Adalat in the year 2022. On a specific query, counsel has not been able to explain the reason for delay. A Division Bench of this Court in “Hind Motors India Ltd. V/s Permanent Lok Adalat, Public Utility Services and Others 2008(2) PLR 91” has held that the limitation for filing a petition under the Act of 1987 is three years and any petition filed thereafter is barred by time. Judgment of the Division Bench is squarely applicable to the facts in the present case. This Court, therefore, does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order.

4A. For the foregoing reason, present writ petition is dismissed though with no order as to costs.

Petition dismissed.

********