The Lok Adalat

A pre-litigation matter, section 20(2). On the application of any one party, the organising Authority or Committee may refer the matter to the Lok Adalat for determination, after giving the other party a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

What the Lok Adalat then does, section 20(3) and (4). It proceeds to dispose of the case and arrive at a compromise or settlement, acting with utmost expedition and guided by the principles of justice, equity, fair play and other legal principles.

And what happens if it fails, which is the part students omit. Section 20(5): where no award is made because no compromise could be arrived at, the record of a referred case is returned to the court from which it came, for disposal in accordance with law; and section 20(7): that court proceeds from the stage reached before the reference. Section 20(6): in a pre-litigation matter, the Lok Adalat advises the parties to seek their remedy in a court.

So nothing is lost by trying. A failed Lok Adalat returns the case to exactly where it was, which is the strongest practical argument for referring.

Section 21: the award

Section 21(1). Every award of the Lok Adalat is deemed to be a decree of a civil court or, as the case may be, an order of any other court; and where a compromise or settlement has been arrived at in a case referred under section 20(1), the court fee paid in that case shall be refunded in the manner provided under the Court-fees Act 1870.

Section 21(2). Every award is final and binding on all the parties to the dispute, and no appeal shall lie to any court against the award.

The refund of court fee is a real incentive and is often forgotten in answers.

The authority. In P.T. Thomas v. Thomas Job, (2005) 6 SCC 478, decided on 4 August 2005, a dispute between brothers was settled before a Lok Adalat, which made an award requiring a sale deed to be executed against payment; the appellant took steps to perform, the Subordinate Judge extended time, and the High Court interfered and treated the award as open to challenge. The Supreme Court set the High Court's order aside, holding that under section 21 every award is deemed to be a decree of a civil court, is final and binding on all the parties, and no appeal lies against it to any court; that under section 22 the Lok Adalat has the powers of a civil court in the matters listed and its proceedings are judicial proceedings; and that a court's attempt should be to give life and enforceability to a compromise award and not to defeat it on technical grounds.

Section 22: its powers

For the purposes of holding any determination under the Act, a Lok Adalat has the same powers as a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure while trying a suit in respect of: summoning and enforcing the attendance of any witness and examining him on oath; the discovery and production of any document; the reception of evidence on affidavits; the requisitioning of any public record or document or a copy of it from any court or office; and such other matters as may be prescribed.

It may specify its own procedure for determining any dispute before it.

And its proceedings are deemed judicial proceedings within the meaning of the sections of the Penal Code the section names, every Lok Adalat being deemed a civil court for the purposes the section states in the criminal procedure law.

What a Lok Adalat is not

It is not a court that decides. It brings the parties to an agreement; if they do not agree there is no award. This is the single most important thing to say, and it is what distinguishes it from the Permanent Lok Adalat of chapter 620.

It is not arbitration. An arbitrator decides; a Lok Adalat conciliates.

It is not appealable, but it is not beyond challenge either. Because an award rests on a compromise, an award where there was no compromise is open to attack on that basis, which is the point that arises where a party says they never agreed.

And it is not only for small matters. Its jurisdiction is the court's jurisdiction, limited only by the compoundability proviso.

The merits and the criticism

Merits. Speed, since a matter is settled in a sitting. No court fee, and a refund of fee already paid. Finality, since no appeal lies. Cheapness, since there is no long representation. Reduction of the courts' pendency. And accessibility: a Lok Adalat can sit in a village, and regulation 18 of the 2011 Regulations lets one be held at a legal services clinic, chapter 600.

Criticism, and an answer needs it. Pressure to settle, because a party who wants adjudication may be pushed towards agreement to clear a docket. Inequality of bargaining, since a settlement between an insurance company and an injured claimant is an agreement between unequals. Absence of reasons, because an award records an agreement and not a reasoning. And no appeal, which is a merit where the agreement was real and a serious problem where it was not.

A worked example

A motor accident claim pending in a tribunal.

Reference. The parties agree, or one applies and the tribunal is prima facie satisfied there are chances of settlement, section 20(1). The parties are heard before a reference under the second route.

The sitting. The Lok Adalat, consisting of a retired judicial officer and other persons of the area under section 19(2), hears both sides, acts with expedition and is guided by justice, equity and fair play, section 20(4).

Outcome one: they agree. An award follows. It is a decree of a civil court, final and binding, no appeal, and the court fee already paid is refunded, section 21.

Outcome two: they do not. No award is made, the record goes back to the tribunal under section 20(5), and the tribunal proceeds from the stage reached before the reference under section 20(7). Nothing has been lost.

Now change the facts to a prosecution for a non-compoundable offence. The proviso to section 19(5) bars it altogether, whatever the parties want.

Quick revision

s.19: organised by the State, District or Taluk bodies or the Supreme Court or High Court Committees; serving or retired judicial officers and other persons; jurisdiction over a pending case or a pre-litigation matter; no jurisdiction over an offence not compoundable.

s.20: reference on agreement, on application with the court prima facie satisfied of chances of settlement, or on the court's own satisfaction, with a hearing in the last two; pre-litigation reference on one party's application after hearing the other; utmost expedition, guided by justice, equity, fair play and other legal principles; if no settlement, the record goes back and the court resumes from the stage reached.

s.21: the award is deemed a decree of a civil court, final and binding, no appeal, and the court fee is refunded.

s.22: the powers of a civil court as to witnesses, documents, affidavits and public records; may specify its own procedure; proceedings are judicial proceedings.

P.T. Thomas v. Thomas Job, (2005) 6 SCC 478: a court's attempt should be to give life and enforceability to a compromise award, not to defeat it on technical grounds.

Test yourself

1. What is the one class of matter over which a Lok Adalat has no jurisdiction, and why? Any case or matter relating to an offence not compoundable under any law, by the proviso to section 19(5). The reason is that a non-compoundable offence cannot be settled by agreement anywhere, so a forum whose whole function is compromise cannot deal with it.

2. What happens if the parties do not settle? No award is made. In a referred case the record is returned to the court under section 20(5) and that court proceeds from the stage reached before the reference under section 20(7); in a pre-litigation matter the Lok Adalat advises the parties to seek their remedy in a court under section 20(6). Nothing is lost by having tried.

3. State the effect of an award and the authority for it. Under section 21 every award is deemed to be a decree of a civil court or an order of any other court, is final and binding on all parties, no appeal lies against it to any court, and the court fee paid in a referred case is refunded. P.T. Thomas v. Thomas Job, (2005) 6 SCC 478, applies section 21 and holds that a court should give life and enforceability to a compromise award rather than defeat it on technical grounds.

4. Give two merits and two criticisms of the Lok Adalat. Merits: a matter is settled in a single sitting with no appeal and the court fee refunded; and it is accessible, since it can sit in a village or at a legal services clinic. Criticisms: a party who wants adjudication may be pressed to settle in order to clear a docket; and where the parties are unequal, as with an insurer and an injured claimant, an agreement between unequals may not reflect the claimant's rights, and no reasoned award records why.