FINAL REPORT

BY
Abhishek Kumar Chaturvedi
DEPARTMENT OF LAW
ICFAI UNIVERSITY
DEHRADUN
WEST BENGAL STATE LEGAL SERVICE AUTHORITY
 A
FINAL REPORT
on the topic
Lok Adalat
BY
Abhishek Kumar Chaturvedi
ID-1004C00002
3rd YEAR BBA.LLB (HONS)
A report submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements
of Law Program of Department of Law, ICFAI
University,Dehradun.

DISTRIBUTION LIST:
PROJECT GUIDE- MR. DARA SHEKO
FACULTY GUIDE- MS. ANAMIKA PANDEY
TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGENO.
1. ABSTRACT 4

2. INTRODUCTION 5

3. MAIN TEXT 6

4. RECOMMENDATIONS 29

5. OBSERVATIONS 30

6. CONCLUSIONS 31

7. REFERENCES 32
ABSTRACT
Lok Adalats are a blend of all three forms of traditional ADR:
arbitration,mediation, and conciliation. They use conciliation, with elements of
arbitration given that decisions are typically binding, and are an illustration of legal
decentralization as conflicts are returned to communities from whence they
originated for local settlement.

Dispute resolution is essentially required for peace in society, harmony,

amicableness and easy accessibility to justice. The usual procedure of resolution of
dispute by courts is time consuming and is an expensive affair.

Article 39-A of constitution of India provides that The State shall secure that the
operation of the legal system promotes justice, on a basis of equal opportunity, and
shall, in particular, provide free legal aid, by suitable legislation or schemes or in
any other way, to ensure that opportunities for securing justice are not denied to
any citizen by reason of economic or other disabilities.

Lok Adalat strives for making peace and harmony in the society. The Legal
Service Authorities Act, 1987 strives for providing free legal aid to the public.

The methods of resolution of disputes by non-formal legal institutions are being

followed from ancient times in India. The Lok Adalats are one of the most famous
and effective way of awarding justice to the poor people.
INTRODUCTION

My report gives a detailed introduction about LOK ADALAT.

Resolution of disputes is an essential characteristic for societal peace, amity,

comity and harmony and easy access to justice.The processual formalisation of
justice as existing in Courts takes time and involves considerable amount of
expenditure. The system of non-formal legal institutions has prevailed in India
since ancient times.

The barrier in the way of implementation of socio-economic legislations like The

Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 and its complementary Rules enacted by state

Governments is not the Indian law system rather those who run it. The Lok Adalats
are the flagship of the Indian judiciary for dispensation of justice to the poor.

It is the duty of the State to see that the legal system promotes justice on the basis
of equal opportunity for all its citizens. It must therefore arrange to provide free
legal aid to those who cannot access justice due to economic and other disabilities.
This report aims at figuring out the relevance and the importance of such
provisions in the present scenario.

MAIN TEXT
We are moving towards a time when it will be
impossible for the courts to cope up with the
dockets. If something is not done, the result will be
a production of line of justice that none of us
would want to see
The seven hundred years old clarion call of the Magna Carta- To no one wills we
sell, to no one will we refuse or delay the right to justice very pertinently embodies
the principle of legal aid. The institution of Lok Adalats have evolved as one of the
most important modes of alternative dispute resolution. The first instance of a Lok
Adalat system was in 1982, in the village of Una, in the district of Junagarh,
Gujarat. Though this was in its rudiments, a fairly modern version of the Lok
Adalat system that exists till date began in Chennai, in 1986. The institution has
developed, since, by leaps and bounds, by the people themselves, in order to
provide for equitable justice speedily at minimal cost.
The crux of this mode of justice dispensation is that it is contrived to enable the
common man to ventilate his grievances against other citizens or even state
agencies, and successfully arrive at an amicable settlement of sorts. Morality,
honesty, justice, equity and good conscience are the high and lofty ideals upon
which this institution is founded.
The literal translation of the Hindi moniker, Lok Adalat, is Peoples Court- Lok,
meaning people, and adalat meaning court. Thus, it simply means a court for the
people, by the people, and of the people themselves. Apart from the fact that it is a
mode of redressing grievances and delivering justice, Lok Adalats have less in
common with the conventional adjudicative machinery. Essentially, the procedural
and perfunctory requirements of proper courts are done away with, and the
cadaverous remains are fleshed out with flexibility and amity in settlement, and
this lends the Lok Adalat the characteristic of people-friendliness.
The Lok Adalat originated from the failure of the Indian legal system to provide
fast, effective, and affordable justice. The evolution of this movement was a part of
the strategy to relieve the heavy burden on the Courts with cases pending disposal.
The pendency of cases poses great difficulties to the judiciary, and to the people
who queue up in the hope of getting justice. It is a well known fact that Justice
Delayed, in effect, is Justice Denied. This phrase is legitimate, what with over
2,000,000 cases flooding in various courts and tribunals in the country, the primary
concern of jurists and legal luminaries today is to speed up the judicial process.
The reason that backed the creation of such courts were only the pending cases and
to give relief to the litigants who were in a queue to get justice. There are myriads
of Justice Seekers, and with the ever increasing numbers, courts face an
unwarranted challenge to their man-power and infrastructure. There is serious
problem of overcrowding of dockets. To ease the heavy burden on the courts, it
would be in the fitness of things if the cases can be resolved by resorting to
'Alternative Dispute Resolution' Methods before they enter the portals of Court.
Lok Adalats are a blend of all three forms of traditional ADR: arbitration,
mediation, and conciliation. They use conciliation, with elements of arbitration
given that decisions are typically binding, and are an illustration of legal
decentralization as conflicts are returned to communities from whence they
originated for local settlement. Chennai, Tamil Nadu, stands tall among the
nations cities for being the first city to effectively hold a Lok Adalat in its modern
form. In 1986, the first Lok Adalat akin to the prevalent modern form, was
organized in Chennai. This paper endeavours to look into the

Deficiencies of Indian Legal System

The legal system as it operates in India, wrong is regarded as a matter of course.
Excessive burden of cases remains upon the judiciary and under such a situation
justice is delayed many times. Unfortunately, the most prominent deficiency of our
legal system is that it has remained alien having no living contact with the
masses.
The legal profession, which is considered the profession of learned, calm and self
controlled people, is now a days going in the hands of such persons who adopt this
pious profession just to make a quick buck and nothing else.3 The ratio of judges
in India is abysmally low at 1213 per one million persons.
The accumulated frustration of the people desirous of quick disposal o their cases
is the biggest single reason for the people having responded with hope, excitement
and zeal in holding Lok Adalats for dispute ending of pending disputes.
Constitutional Mandate of Justice
Article 39-A, The Constitution of India inserted through the 42nd amendment in
1976 requires the State to secure that the operation of the legal system promotes
justice, on a basis of equal opportunity, and shall, in particular, provide free legal
aid, by suitable legislation or schemes or in any other way, to ensure that
opportunities for securing justice are not denied to any citizen by reason of
economic or other disabilities. The entire mechanism of Lok Adalats designed and
evolved is with the object of promoting justice. Justice has three connotations
namely social, economic and political. The first two connotations are handled by
the said mechanism. They not only give an opportunity to the parties to resolve
disputes but such resolution - is at lowest possible cost , achieved amicably with
consent of parties concerned. Access to Justice means an ability to participate in
the judicial process. It is that human right which covers not only bare court entry
but has many dimensions including time consuming factor. For We the People, the
vision of justice as embodied in the constitution entails delivering quality of justice
(impartial and steadfast) which is speedy, accessible and distributive in nature.
Both pre-litigation and post-litigation efforts are invited by Lok Adalats to enable
the entire society to create peace and harmony. The Legal Services Authorities
Act, 1987 makes provision for free legal aid which can be availed both before the
Courts and Lok Adalats so constituted. The Court has to give guidance to parties
(when parties are opting for any mode of ADR) by drawing their attention to the
relevant factors which parties will have to take into account, before they exercise
their opinion as to the particular mode of settlement.

Judicial Mandate on ADR Modes

In Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu v. Union of India, the Apex Court
suggested that with a view to enable the Court to refer the parties to
conciliation/mediation, where parties are unable to reach a consensus on an agreed
name, there should be a panel of well trained conciliators/mediators to which it
may be possible for the Court to make a reference.

Mandate under CPC

Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure as amended in 2002 has introduced
conciliation, mediation and pre-trial settlement methodologies for effective
resolution of disputes. Judgement to be ordinarily pronounced within 30 days
subject to a maximum time limit of 60 days (for extraordinary reasons) is one of
the amendments introduced for speedy disposal. Similarly time-limit for filing
documents has been fixed and Judge is not allowed to give more than three
amendments in a civil suit.

Significance of Lok Adalats in the present scenario.

The concept of conciliated settlement of disputes is not alien to the traditional
Indian culture and social life. Nyaya Panchayats and Gram Panchayat provided
seats for resolving the disputes in rural areas on an immediate basis. Generally, any
crime or civil dispute used to be resolved within the village itself. Either village
elders or caste elders or family elders used to facilitate the process.

The introduction of Lok Adalats added a new chapter to the justice dispensation
system of this country and succeeded in providing a supplementary forum to the
victims for satisfactory settlement of their disputes. This system is based on
Gandhian principles. It is one of the components of ADR systems. It is an Indian
contribution to the world jurisprudence of ADR. Lok Adalat (people’s
courts), established by the government settles dispute by the principles of justice,
equity and fair play, which are the guiding factors for decisions based on
compromises to be arrived at before such Adalats.
The camps of Lok Adalats were initially started in the state of Gujarat in 1982. The
first Lok Adalat was organized on 14th March 1982 at Junagarh. Maharashtra
commenced the Lok Nyayalaya in 1984. The movement has now subsequently
spread to the entire country. The reason to create such camps was only the pending
cases and to give relief to the litigants who were in a queue to get justice.

In Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar, the Supreme Court

observed:

Today, unfortunately, in our country the poor are priced out of the judicial system
with the result that they are losing faith in the capacity of our legal system to bring
about changes in their life conditions and to deliver justice to them. The poor in
their contact with the legal system have always been on the wrong side of the line.
They have always come across “law for the poor” rather than
“law of the poor”. The law is regarded by them as something
mysterious and forbidding--always taking something away from them and not as a
positive and constructive social device for changing the social economic order and
improving their life conditions by conferring rights and benefits on them. The
result is that the legal system has lost its credibility for the weaker section of the
community. It is, therefore, necessary that we should inject equal justice into
legality and that can be done only by dynamic and activist scheme of legal
services.

Cases Suitable For Lok Adalats

Lok Adalats have competence to deal with a number of cases like:

Compoundable civil, revenue and criminal cases.

Motor accident compensation claims cases

Partition Claims

Damages Cases
 Matrimonial and family disputes

Mutation of lands case

Land Pattas cases

Bonded Labour cases

Land acquisition disputes

Bank’s unpaid loan cases

Arrears of retirement benefits cases

Family Court cases

Cases which are not sub-judice

Need For Lok Adalats

Justice Ramaswamy says: “ Resolving disputes through Lok Adalat not
only minimizes litigation expenditure, it saves valuable time of the parties and their
witnesses and also facilitates inexpensive and prompt remedy appropriately to the
satisfaction of both the parties”

Law Courts in India face mainly four problems:

The number of courts and judges in all grades are alarmingly inadequate

Increase in flow of cases in recent years due to multifarious Acts enacted by the
Central and State Governments

The high cost involved in prosecuting or defending a case in a court of law, due
to heavy court fee, lawyer's fee and incidental charges

Delay in disposal of cases resulting in huge pendency in all the courts

Lok Adalat has a positive contributory role in the administration of justice. It
supplements the efforts and work of the courts. Area of contribution chosen for the
purpose specially concerns and helps the common man, the poor, backward and the
needy-most sections of the society.

Advantages Of Lok Adalats

1 Speedy Justice And Saving From The Lengthy Court Procedures

Lok adalats ensure speedier justice because it can be conducted at suitable places,
arranged very fast, in local languages too, even for the illiterates.

The procedural laws and the Evidence Act are not strictly followed while assessing
the merits of the claim by the Lok Adalat. Hence, Lok Adalats are also known as
“People’s Festivals of Justice”

The victims and the offender may be represented by their advocate or they can
interact with the Lok Adalat judge directly and explain their stand in the dispute
and the reasons thereof, which is not possible in a regular court of law.

2 Justice At No Cost

Abraham Lincoln has observed:

"Discourage litigation. Persuade your neighbors to compromise wherever you can.

Point out to them how the nominal winner is often a real loser - in fees, expenses,
and waste of time. As a peacemaker, the lawyer has a superior opportunity of being
a good man. There will still be business enough."

Lok Adalat is the only institutionalized mechanism of dispute resolution in which

the parties do not have to bear any expenses.

There is no court fee in Lok Adalat. If the case is already filed in the regular court,
the fee paid is refunded in the manner provided under the Court Fees Act if the
dispute is settled at the Lok Adalat. This kind of refund is an incentive given to
parties to negotiate for settlement. Lok Adalat is a boon to the litigant public,
where they can get their disputes settled fast and free of cost.
Denial of free legal services to the poor accused persons or under trial prisoners
would vitiate the principle of “reasonable, just and fair” procedure
which is implied in the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the
Constitution.

In Suk Das v. Union Territory of Arunachal Pradesh, the

Apex Court held that failure to provide free legal aid to an accused at the
State’s cost would vitiate the trial. The Court has set aside the conviction of
an accused on the ground that he was not provided with legal aid at the time of his
trial and thus there was violation of Article 21 of the Constitution.

3 Solving Problems Of Backlog Cases

Delivering the inaugural address at a seminar on judicial reforms, the President

said: “Delays render the common man’s knock on the temple of
justice a frustrating experience. Litigants are not able to lead normal lives being
unsure of the verdict in their case.’’ Terming the pending cases as an
“explosion of litigation,” she said the current figures reveal that the
arrears in HCs exceeded 40 lakh cases and in subordinate courts 270 lakh.

The curse of backlogs in India is well known and Andhra Pradesh High Court
judge Justice V V Rao has gone on to say that it will take 320 years for the Indian
Judiciary to clear its backlog.

In a Lok Adalat, if a compromise is reached, an award is made and is binding on

the parties. It is enforced as a decree of a civil court.An important aspect is that the
award is final and cannot be appealed, not even under Article 226 because it is a
judgment by consent. All proceedings of a Lok Adalat are deemed to be judicial
proceedings and every Lok Adalat is deemed to be a Civil Court. Section 25 of the
Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 provides that the provisions of the act have an
overriding effect notwithstanding anything which is inconsistent with any other
law.

In Punjab National Bank v. Lakshmichand Rai, an appeal

was filed under S. 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the award made by a
Lok Adalat. The question before the court was whether such can appeal is
maintainable. So in this case it was iterated that “an appeal would not lie
under the provisions of Section 96 C.P.C. Lok Adalat is conducted under an
independent enactment and once the award is made by Lok Adalat the right of
appeal shall be governed by the Legal Services Authority Act.” It has been
specifically mentioned in S. 21(2) that no appeal shall die against an order of a Lok
Adalat.

Further, in Board of Trustees of the Port of Visakhapatnam v.

Presiding Officer, Permanent, Lok Adalat-cum-
Secretary, District Legal Services Authority,
Visakhapatnam and Anr., , it was observed that the award is
enforceable as a decree and it is final. The endeavor 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.

The scheme also helps the overburdened Courts to alleviate the burden of arrears
of cases and as the award becomes final and binding on both the parties, no appeal
is filed in the Appellate Court and, as such, the burden of the Appellate Court in
hierarchy is also reduced. Hence, to alleviate the accumulation of cases, the Lok
Adalat is the need of the day.

4. Maintenance Of Cordial Relations

The main thrust of Lok Adalats is on compromise. When no compromise is

reached, the matter goes back to the court. While conducting the proceedings, a
Lok Adalat acts as a conciliator and not as an arbitrator. Its role is to persuade the
parties to hit upon a solution and help in reconciling the contesting differences.
Lok Adalat cannot decide the issues nor can it influence or force the parties to
decide in a particular way. It encourages consensual arrangements. It is not
possible for lok adalat to decide upon any issue not acceptable to any of the parties.

Lok Adalats are also required to follow the principles of natural justice and other
legal principles. In Kishan Rao v. Bidar District Legal
Services Authority, the question raised was whether the Lok Adalat
could pass a decree when all the parties had not appeared before the Lok Adalat
nor had notice been issued to them. The Karnataka High Court interpreted Section
20(3) of the Legal Services Authorities Act to hold that all the parties to the suit
must be present if the compromise was to be a valid one. Thus the impugned
decree was struck down as being a nullity by reason of violation of natural justice..

In Lok Adalats, disputes are not only settled but also the cordial relations between
the parties are retained as disputes are resolved amicably. Hence, it is a very
healthy way of dispute resolution.

LOK ADALAT LAW AND JUDICIAL APPROACH

The Institution of Lok Adalat has a great significance in a developing country like
India, where there is appalling poverty, ignorance and illiteracy, and the people
lack awareness of their rights and means to enforce them.1 It has been developed
with the object to struggle with the problems of lengthy and costly justice system.
The system as an innovative form of Alternative Dispute Resolution has been
working for resolving disputes in a spirit of conciliation outside the courts since
1982. In beginning, the Lok Adalats were established as a part of Legal Aid
Service Programme. At that time, these were organized by State Legal Aid and
Advice Boards or District Legal Aid Committees. The venue of the Lok Adalat
was fixed about a month in advance by the Legal Aid Board or Legal Aid
Committee.

Lok Adalat was given wide publicity through print and electronic media. It took
cases pending in courts, tribunals and before the executive. For this purpose, the
Chairman of District Legal Aid Committee directed to the various courts which
were to be covered by the Lok Adalat to prepare a list of pending cases which they
considered to be suitable for negotiated settlement. Similarly, the District
Magistrate or Deputy Commissioner or Collector as he was known in some places
instructed its subordinate officers to prepare a list of revenue and executive cases
to be settled in the Lok Adalat. Generally, these cases were of civil, revenue and
compoundable criminal offences. Therefore, it had wide jurisdiction to settle
various types of cases involving mutation of land, land pattas, forest land, labour
disputes and industrial disputes, cases of guardianship and succession, matrimonial
and family disputes, mostly motor vehicles accidental claims, etc.4 For the
selection of cases, to be referred to Lok Adalat, no hard and fast criteria was laid
down. It was depended upon the judges of the Court to select the cases for
settlement through Lok Adalats. Upon the preparation of list of such cases, notices
were then issued to all the partices to dispute well in time so as to afford them
opportunity to prepare themself for the Lok Adalat. On the specified day, place and
time the Lok Adalat was organized and in which apart from parties to the dispute,
members of Lok Adalat, local officers, lawyers, members of Gram Panchayats,
Zila Parishads, law teachers and students, social workers and people from nearby
places were assembled. The members of a Lok Adalat were usually a retired
judicial officers or retired civil servants or advocates or law teachers or social
workers. Such person were selected as the members of Lok Adalat on the basis of
their record of public service, honesty and respectability among local population.

In Lok Adalat's proceedings, at first instance, both the disputing parties were called
for the presentation of their case before it. Then the parties explained their views
and discussed various issues of the dispute. The members of Lok Adalat heard
the viewpoints of the parties and endeavoured to provide guidelines for both the
parties for arriving at the truth of the matter. It also provided even a solution with
regard to resolution of dispute, in case of any difficulty faced by them in the
decision making process. An agreement was finally drawn on the basis of the free
consent of the parties and was signed by both parties in the presence of members of
Lok Adalat. The Lok Adalat took initiative to acquaint the regular court with the
resolution of disputes and requested for the execution of agreement arrived at
between the parties. Finally, the Lok Adalat requested the court to withdraw the
case on the lines agreed to by both the parties before it. It is evident from the
process of working of Lok Adalat that it is a forum which does not only provide
speedy and cheap justice to all through conciliatory and persuasive methods but
also brings unity and brotherhood among disputants. The functioning of the Lok
Adalat system shows that it has received wide support from different Sections of
the society even it has different structure and procedure in different States of the
country. It has helped in lessening the work load of courts and has also provided
justice to the poor, weaker and neglected sections of the society. Therefore, in the
light of advantages of Lok Adalat system and in order to implement the
Constitutional mandate under Article 39A, the Parliament has provided the
statutory status to Lok Adalats under the Legal Services Authorities Act,
1987 (for brevity 'the Act'). The powers, procedure to be followed for settlement of
disputes through the instrumentality of Lok Adalat, have also been spelt out in the
Act. The Act has prescribed the method to organize Lok Adalats for operation of
the legal system and to promote justice on a basis of equal opportunity.

ORGANISATIONAL STRUCTURE

At Supreme Court level the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee is

authorized to organize Lok Adalat for the Supreme Court cases. Such Lok Adalat
shall consist of a sitting or retired judicial officer and other persons who must be
(a) a member of the legal profession; or (b) a reputed person who is also
interested in the implementation of the Legal Service s Schemes and Programmes;
or (c) an eminent social worker engaged in the upliftment of weaker Sections of
the people, including Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, women, children, rural
and urban labour. The Lok Adalat at High Court level shall be consisted of serving
or retired judicial officer and other persons which includes social worker engaged
in the upliftment of the weaker Section of the people including Scheduled castes,
Scheduled Tribes, women, children, Rural and Urban labour; or a lawyer of
standing; or a reputed person who is interested in the implementation of the Legal
Services Programmes and Schemes.

The Secretary of the District Authority and the Chairman of Sub-Divisional

Committee, as the case may be, constitutes the benches of Lok Adalat at District
level and Sub-Divisional level. Each bench is comprised of two or three members
viz. a sitting or retired judicial officer; a member of legal profession, and a social
worker, Medical practitioner or para legal of the area. But it has been noticed that
in some of Lok Adalat benches, certain individuals have been participating as
members of Lok Adalat for the last several years. This practice narrows down the
scheme of the Act which encourages participation of as many people as possible on
different occasions. Therefore, to implement the object of the Act different persons
should be asked to participate in various Lok Adalats as their members. The Lok
Adalat is an unique institution where different persons as its members actively
apply their mind for finding the solution of the dispute.

Permanent Lok Adalat

 The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the law setting up
permanent Lok Adalats and stipulating the binding nature of their decrees arrived
through a compromise struck between parties who were litigating on disputes over
public services.
A bench of Justices R M Lodha and A R Dave dismissed a 10-year-old writ
petition filed by Bar Council of India (BCI), the regulatory body for advocates,
challenging the validity of the 2002 amendment to the Legal Services Authorities
Act, 1987, which provided setting up of such people-friendly adjudicatory forums
which attempted to strike a compromise between parties to save them time and
money spent on litigation.
The highlights of the 2002 amendment were:
* the Permanent Lok Adalat shall exercise jurisdiction in respect of one or more
public utility service such as transport services of passengers or goods by air, road
and water, postal, telegraph or telephone services, supply of power, light or water
to the public by any establishment, public conservancy or sanitation, services in
hospitals or dispensaries, and insurance services
* the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Permanent Lok Adalat shall be up to Rupees ten
lakh. However, the central government may increase the said pecuniary
jurisdiction from time to time. It shall have no jurisdiction in respect of any matter
relating to an offence not compoundable under any law
* every award made by the Permanent Lok Adalat shall be final and binding on all
the parties thereto and shall be by a majority of the persons constituting the
Permanent Lok Adalat.
The bench said, "By not making applicable the Code of Civil Procedure and the
statutory provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, there is no compromise on the
quality of determination of dispute since the Permanent Lok Adalat has to be
objective, decide the dispute with fairness and follow the principles of natural
justice. Sense of justice and equity continue to guide the Permanent Lok Adalat
while conducting conciliation proceedings or when the conciliation proceedings
fail, in deciding a dispute on merit."
The apex court said non-provision for appeal against the decision of the Permanent
Lok Adalat did not render the Act unconstitutional since the right to appeal was a
statutory right and not a fundamental right.
Rejecting the plea for a provision to appeal against Lok Adalat's decision in the
high courts, the court said, "No appeal is provided from the award passed by the
Permanent Lok Adalat but that, in our opinion, does not render the impugned
provisions unconstitutional."

APPLICATION FORM
1. APPLICATION FORM FOR LEGAL AID

1. Name of Applicant :
2. Fathers/Husbands Name :
3. Residential Address (Tel. No. if any) :
4. Whether Employed/Unemployed :
5. Place of Work :
6. Nationality & Religion :
7. Whether SC/ST (Proof in support of it) :
8. Income per month (Affidavit on Rs.10/-
On non-judicial paper in support of it) :
9. Name and Address of opposite party &
Tel. No. (if any) :
10. Whether legal aid is required to file : Suit/Application U/s 125 Cr. P.C./Civil
(Please
state the category) Writ/ Criminal Writ/ Labour Case/ Service Matter/Criminal
Matter/
Other (pl. specify)
(a) State the full address of immovable
property in dispute and the place where
property is situated :
(b) In money suit, state the date on which
it fell due. :
11. Whether any application has been filed
previously before this Authority, if yes,
mention date and file No. of application:
12. Details of your problem ( in brief) :
13. Please state whether any case is pending
before, any court, if so, the details thereof:
14. Nature of relief sought :
SIGNATURE OF THE APPLICANT
REMARKS :
Whether entitled to legal aid
__________________________________________________________________

2. APPLICATION FORM FOR REFERRING THE CASE TO LOK

ADALAT
1. Title of the case with present
address of the claimant. :
2. Next / Last date of hearing :
3. Name of the Insurance Co :
4. Name of the claimant counsel :
5. Date of Accident :
6. Name of the Insurance Co. Counsel :
7. Vehicle No. :
8. Policy / Cover note No. :
9. Full address of Policy :
10. Whether W.S. on behalf of Insurance
Company has been filed :
11. Details of the Criminal Case :
a) Name of the Court of
Metropolitan Magistrate :
b) F.I.R. No. :
c) Police Station :
d) Under Section :
e) Whether the case is pending
or decided. :
f) Next / Last Date of hearing :
PHOTOCOPIES OF DOCUMENT TO BE ATTACHED
a) Cover note / Certificate of Insurance Company.
b) Copy of charge sheet & F.I.R.
c) Site Plan
d) Driving License of the accused driver and/or its impound slip.
e) Superdarinama of Vehicle involved in accident.
f) MLC /P. M.. Report
g) Proof of age of the injured/deceased.
h) Bills & cash Memos relating to medical expenses,
if any supported by prescription.
(SIGNATURE OF THE APPLICANT)

IMPORTANT NOTE:
1. Application should be in duplicate with one set of documents.
2. Application incomplete in any respect and / or without any of the documents
shall not
be entertained.
3. Cases negotiated in conciliation shall not be listed in Lok Adalat.
4. Claimants need not apply in those cases where Written Statement on behalf of
the Insurance Company has not been filed.

CASE LAW

Jharkhand High Court

Branch Manager, Tata Aig General vs Mrs. Bandana Devi on 25

February, 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 2557 of 2008
1. Branch Manager, Tata AIG General
Insurance Co. Ltd., East Singhbhum
2. The Manager (Claims), Tata AIG
General Insurance Co.Ltd., West
Bengal ...... Petitioners Versus
Mrs. Bandana Devi ...... Opposite Parties
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D. N. PATEL
---------
For the Petitioners : M/s Deepak Banerjee & Ashutosh Anand, Advocates
For the respondent : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate ---------
th
03/ Dated: 25 February, 2010
1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the order, passed by the
Permanent Lok Adalat, Jamshedpur, dated 2nd January, 2008 in Permanent Lok
Adalat Case No. 132 of 2007, which is at Annexure 6 to the memo of petition, is
under challenge, in this writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted
that the Permanent Lok Adalat has not power, jurisdiction and authority to
adjudicate the dispute between the parties and never any consent, much less in
writing, has been given by the petitioners for deciding the dispute, on merits by the
Permanent Lok Adalat, Jamshedpur. The role of the Permanent Lok Adalat is of a
conciliator and not of a adjudicator. It is also vehemently submitted by the learned
counsel for the petitioners that the requirements, as per Sub-Section (7) of Section
22-C of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987, has also not been complied with,
as per the decision rendered by a Division bench of this Court in the case of Bharat
Sanchar Nigam Limited V. State of Jharkhand & anr., as reported in 2008(3)
J.L.J.R. Page-513. It has also been submitted by the learned counsel for the
petitioners that there is also a decision, rendered by this Court in the cAse of
Eastern-Central Railway & anr. V. Ashok Kumar Verma & ors., as reported in
2009(4) J.L.J.R. Page-129, wherein also, it has been decided that unless a consent
is given in writing by both the parties, the Permanent Lok Adalat has not power,
jurisdiction and authority to decide the dispute between the parties under Sub-
Section (8) of Section 22- C of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987. Even
otherwise also, in the facts of the present case, right from the written statement,
paragraph no.2 onwards, filed by the present petitioners in Permanent Lok Adalat
Case No. 132 of 2007, the claim of the petitioners has been denied and the
jurisdiction of the Permanent Lok Adalat has also been denied and, therefore, in
view of the aforesaid decisions and looking to the provisions of the Legal Services
Authority Act, 1987, the impugned order, passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat,
Jamshedpur, dated 2nd January, 2008 in Permanent Lok Adalat Case No. 132
of 2007, deserves to be quashed and set aside.

2. I have heard learned counsel for the respondents, who has submitted that the
present petitioners, who are original respondents in Permanent Lok Adalat Case
No. 132 of 2007, have never objected when the decision, on merits, was given by
the Permanent Lok Adalat and, therefore, the decision, rendered by the Permanent
Lok Adalat, Jamshedpur, is in consonence with the provisions of the Legal
Services Authority Act, 1987. Even otherwise also, there is no illegality, pointed
out by the petitioners in the impugned order, passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat,
Jamshedpur, and, therefore, this writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

3. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts
and circumstances of the case, I hereby quashed and set aside the impugned order,
passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Jamshedpur, dated 2nd January, 2008 in
Permanent Lok Adalat Case No. 132 of 2007, mainly for the following facts and
reasons:
(I) The present petitioners were the original respondents/defendants in Permanent
Lok Adalat Case No. 132 of 2007, instituted by the present respondent before the
Permanent Lok Adalat, Jamshedpur. Looking to the written statement, filed by the
present petitioners, right from paragraph no.2 onwards, it appears that the
petitioners have raised an objection about the claim of the petitioner (respondent
herein) and it has also been mentioned that the claim of the petitioner (respondent
herein) is not maintainable before the Permanent Lok Adalat. Likewise, there are
further disagreements for decision, on merits, in paragraph nos. 8, 11 and 18 of the
written statement.

(II) It appears from the facts of the case that the Permanent Lok Adalat has never
offered the terms of settlement, as required under Sub-Section (7) of Section 22-C
of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987. It has been held by a Division Bench of
this Court in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited V. State of Jharkhand &
anr., as reported in 2008(3) J.L.J.R. Page-513, at paragraph no. 18, as under:
".................................In our opinion, instead of exercising adjudicatory role, the
Permanent Lok Adalat ought to have acted in such a manner to bring the parties
into a settlement. The duty of the Permanent Lok Adalat is to bring the parties to a
settlement and to pass award instead of adjudicating a dispute and pass an award
without taking notice of the Act and the Rules under which claim was
entertainable. In our considered opinion, Permanent Lok Adalat has no jurisdiction
to directly invoke the provision of Sub-section (8) of Section 22-C and decide the
dispute on merit against the will of the party. As the basic object and power of
enacting Chapter VIA is to get the disputes settled at the pre-litigation stage the
provision of sub-section (8) become redundant where the Permanent Lok Adalat
failed to apply the provisions of sub-section (4) to (7) of Section 22- C of the Act."
(III) In view of the aforesaid decision, it is the duty vested in the Permanent Lok
Adalat to offer the terms of settlement under Sub-Section (7) of Section 22-C of
the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987. Never such terms of settlement has been
offered by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Jamshedpur. Thus, there is a violation of
Sub-Section (7) of Section 22-C of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987.
(IV) It has also been held by this Court in the case of State Bank of India V. State
of Jharkhand & anr., as reported in 2009(2) J.L.J.R. Page-684, at sub-paragraph
nos. (vii) to (x) of paragraph 6, as under: "(vii) Now the question arises how a
Permanent Lok Adalat can switch over to sub-section (8) of Section 22-C of the
Act, 1987 for playing its adjudicatory role. It appears from sub-section (8) of
Section 22-C of the Act, 1987, that Permanent Lok Adalat can decide the dispute if
the dispute is not relating to any offence and if no settlement has been arrived at,
after following the procedure under sub-section (7) of Section 22-C of the Act,
1987. As per Section 22- D of the Act, 1987, neither the provisions of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 are applicable, nor the provisions of Indian Evidence Act,
1872 are applicable. Likewise, the order passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, as
per Section 22-E of the Act, 1987, is not an appellable order and, therefore, the
Permanent Lok Adalat must make the parties aware of the aforesaid aspect and,
even if, they are giving consent for playing an adjudicatory role by the Permanent
Lok Adalat, then only the Permanent Lok Adalat can decide the dispute on merits.
Thus, under sub-section (7) of Section 22-C of the Act, 1987, Permanent Lok
Adalat must offer the terms of settlement on its own. If the settlement is not arrived
at, then the Permanent Lok Adalat should inform the parties that whether they wish
that dispute may be decided on merits by Permanent Lok Adalat. This option ought
to have been given and there must be a positive answer from both the parties. If
one of the parties to the dispute is denying the adjudication of the dispute,
Permanent Lok Adalat shall not decide the dispute on merits. Permanent Lok
Adalat shall also make the parties aware that it is not bound by the provisions of
the Code of Civil Procedure and likewise, it is also not boudn by the provisions of
Indian Evidence Act. Permanent Lok Adalat will also make the parties aware
before exercising powers under sub-section (8) of Section 22-C of the Act, 1987,
that the award, passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, will be a final one and no
appeal shall like and despite this awareness, if both the parties to the dispute are
giving consent that Permanent Lok Adalat can decide the dispute on merits, then
only Permanent Lok Adalat shall decide the dispute on merits, otherwise the
matter will again go to the normal course or the parties will be free to take recourse
under the law. This Safeguard is necessary to make the parties aware, because
several parties to the dispute may not be agreeable for their matters to be decided
by the Permanent Lok Adalat, where neither the provisions of Code of Civil
Procedure nor the provisions of Indian Evidence Act is applicable. Even, no appeal
is provided under the Act, 1987 against the award of Permanent Lok Adalat under
Section 22-E of the Act, 1987. (viii) Looking to the scheme of the Act, it appears
that any of the parties to a dispute can make an application to a Permanent Lok
Adalat for settlement of the dispute, as per sub-section (1) of Section 22-C of the
Act. Thus, any complex matter may come to the Permanent Lok Adalat
unilaterally, upon an application by a single party, or without a joint application by
the parties to the dispute also, any party can prefer an application before the
Permanent Lok Adalat for settlement of the dispute and, therefore, Permanent Lok
Adalat ought to follow, as stated hereinabove, the procedure and the requirement
of sub-section (7) of Section 22-C of the Act, 1987, and if no settlement is arrived
at, then again, option should be given to the parties to the dispute, after make them
aware of the non- applicability of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure
and the provisions of Indian Evidence Act and also that there shall be no appeal
against the award, passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, and even after this
awareness, if both the parties give consent that Permanent Lok Adalat may decide
the dispute on merits, then only Permanent Lok Adalat shall exercise powers under
sub-section (8) of Section 22-C of the Act, 1987, but if one of the parties is
refusing for adjudication, on merits, of the dispute by Permanent Lok Adalat, it
shall not decide the dispute on merits. The primary role of the Permanent Lok
Adalat is settlement and it can wear a robe of the court for playing adjudicatory
role, only upon consent in writing of all the parties to the dispute and not
otherwise.
(ix) In the facts of the present case, neither the procedure, as stated hereinabove,
under sub-section (7) of Section 22-C of the Act, 1987, has been followed i.e.
giving the terms of settlement, by Permanent Lok Adalat to the parties to the
dispute, nor their consent has been taken prior to playing an adjudicatory role
under sub-section (8) of Section 22-C of the Act. Consent or sanction of all the
partiers to the dispute before adjudication on merits under sub-section (8) of
Section 22-C of the Act, 1987, is a condition precedent. Willingness of the parties
to the dispute for adjudication, on merits, of a dispute, is at a pivotal position.
Permanent Lok Adalat is basically not a court at all. Only as an exceptional
case,with consent of the parties, the Permanent Lok Adalat can play an
adjudicatory role. It is a prime duty, vested in the Permanent Lok Adalat, before
exercising powers under sub-section (8) of Section 22-C of the Act, 1987, to make
the parties aware about non-applicability of the provisions of Code of Civil
Procedure and the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act and also that the award,
passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, is a non- appeallable order and, thereafter,
the Permanent Lok Adalat must ask for the consent of the parties to the dispute.
Such consent must be reduced in writing by the parties, so as to avoid future
complications and upon taking such pursis/ joint application, signed by both the
parties to the dispute that they are ready and willing for getting decision on merits,
by the Permanent Lok Adalat, of their dispute, and they are aware that the
provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure and the provisions of Indian 'Evidence
Act are not applicable and the award, passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, is also
not appellable, this type of written joint pursis/ joint application, signed by both the
parties, must be taken on record, henceforth, by the Permanent Lok Adalat, and
thereafter only, it shall exercise the powers of deciding, on merits, the dispute or
disputes between the parties under sub- section (8) of Section 22-C of the Act,
1987. If there is no consent by any of the parties to the dispute, Permanent Lok
Adalat shall refrain itself, from exercising powers under sub-section (8) of Section
22-C of the Act, 1987, it has also been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of State of Punjab Vs. Jalour Singh (supra), as reported in (2008)2 SCC 660,
in paragraph no.9, as under:-
"9. But we find that many sitting or retired Judges, while participating in the Lok
Adalats as members, tend to
conduct the Lok Adalats like courts, by hearing parties, and imposing their views
as to what is just and equitable, on the parties. Sometimes they get carried away
and proceed to pass orders on merits, as in this case, even though there is no
consensus or settlement. Such acts, instead of fostering alternative dispute
resolution through the Lok Adalats, will drive the litigants away from the Lok
Adalats. The Lok Adalats should resist their temptation to play the part of Judges
and constantly strive to function as conciliators. The endeavour and
effort of the Lok Adalats should be to guide and persuade the parties, with
reference to principles of justice, equity and fair play to compromise and settle the
dispute by explaining the pros and cons, strengths and weaknesses, advantages and
disadvantages of their respective claims." (Emphasis supplied).
(x) If against the desire of the parties, a dispute is decided on merits under sub-
section (8) of Section 22-C of the Act, 1987, where neither the provisions of the
Code of Civil Procedure are applicable, nor the provisions of Indian Evidence Act
are applicable, nor the order is appellable (as per Sections 22-D and 22-E of the
Act, 1987), then no party will come for settlement of the dispute at a prelitigation
stage."
(Emphasis supplied)
(V) It has been held by this Court in the case of Eastern-Central Railway & anr. V.
Ashok Kumar Verma & ors., as reported in 2009(4) J.L.J.R. Page-129, at
paragraph no.5, that looking to the provisions of Section 22-D of the Legal
Services Authority Act, 1987, and looking to the role, to be played by the
Permanent Lok Adalat, it should be brought to the notice by the Permanent Lok
Adalat of the parties to the dispute that neither the provisions of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1982 nor the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1908 are applicable to the proceedings of the Permanent Lok Adalat and there shall
not be any appeal, tenable at law. With these informations, if the parties are giving
their consent in writing, then only the Permanent Lok Adalat can decide the
dispute, on merits, as envisaged under Sub-Section (8) of Section 22-C of the
Legal Services Authority Act, 1987. In the facts of the present case, never such
consent in writing has been given by the present petitioners and, therefore also, the
impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside. (VI) The predominant role,
to be played by the Permanent Lok Adalat, is of a conciliator and not as a
adjudicator. The Permanent Lok Adalat should not wear the robe of the Court. If
the Permanent Lok Adalat will decide the disputes, on merits, perhaps the parties
will not go to the Permanent Lok Adalat. The Permanent Lok Adalat msut offer the
terms of settlement to the parties, looking to their wisdom and experience, as
envisaged under Sub- Section (7) of Section 22-C of the Legal Services Authority
Act, 1987 and also looking to the aforesaid decisions, rendered by this Court. The
Permanent Lok Adalat should remain slow in deciding the dispute, on merits,
unless the parties are made aware of the fact that to the proceedings of the
Permanent Lok Adalat, the provisions of Indian Evidence Act,
1872 and the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1908 are not
applicable and the order, passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat is not an appellable
order, as per the provisions of Section 22-D of the Legal Services Authority Act,
1987 as also the provisions of Section 22-E of the Legal Services Authority Act,
1987 and, thereafter, if the parties are giving their consent, in writing, then only,
the Permanent Lok Adalat should venture in deciding the dispute, on merits,
otherwise not. Once consent is given by the parties to the dispute,
in writing, the Permanent Lok Adalat would decide the dispute, on merits, like an
arbitrator. The arbitrator is a Judge privately appointed by the parties and the
decision, rendered by the arbitrator, is known as an "award"
and only on a limited ground, it can be challenged and not by way of an appeal.
Looking to the scheme of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987, enacted in
pursuance of the provisions of Article 39A of the Constitution of India, it appears
that the Predominant role of a Permanent Lok Adalat is to arrive at a settlement
between the parties. For adjudication, there are several courts and several tribunals.
It has been observed by this Court in several Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Cases
also that the Permanent Lok Adalats are deciding the disputes, on
merits, without there being any consent. It ought to be kept in mind that separate
tribunals have already been constituted by law and the members of the Permanent
Lok Adalats are sometime retired judges of the district court. Their ability of the
judgment to the dispute is not to be checked as a member of the Permanent Lok
Adalat. Their ability to arrive at a settlement will be appreciated by the law. Even
though they are retired judges, they must remain slow in deciding the disputes, on
merits, because they are sitting as a member of the Permanent Lok Adalat and not
as a judge in any court. As a cumulative effect, of the aforesaid facts, reasons and
judicial pronouncements, I hereby quash and set aside the impugned order, passed
by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Jamshedpur, dated 2nd January, 2008, in Permanent
Lok Adalat Case No. 132 of 2007 (Annexure 6 to the memo of petition). The
respondent is at liberty to approach the appropriate court or forum for redressal of
the grievances. As and when the respondent approaches the concerned court/forum
for redressal of her grievances, the period consumed in pursuing the Permanent
Lok Adalat Case and in this writ petition, will be sympathetically considered for
condoning the delay, in view of Section 14 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963.
5. This writ petition is, accordingly, allowed and disposed of.
(D.N. Patel, J)
A.K.Verma/
RECOMMENDATIONS

After preparing a project on the Lok Adalat,I would like to make the following
recommendations:

It is highly interesting to know the problems of the rural poor and urban
poor separately and also to find out how they compare with the legal
problems of the non-poor living in rural and urban India. An efficient
organization of a legal services delivery system may have to take account of
all of these differences in legal needs of the poor and design the program
accordingly.
Lack of awareness is the main impendent in effective lok adalat. Efforts
should be made to inform the public of the existence of these services by
using electronic media and aggressive campaigns. Government should also
target rural areas for making them aware about this concept.

Awareness of schemes and programs to be able to guide the poor litigants

about the issue of Legal Aid.
Each district legal aid service authority should be evaluated and compared
with other district legal service authority as well as intra states to encourage
legal aid.
OBSERVATIONS
Its a very wonderful provision incorporated in our constitution in the
Article 39A to promote Justice on equal basis.
NALSA has formulated a strategy to provide basic and essential knowledge
to the vulnerable groups so that they can understand the law and know the
scope of their rights under the law and eventually assert their rights as a
means to take action, uplift their social status and being in social change.
It is a win win system where all the parties to the dispute have something
to gain.
It is economical No court fee is payable. If any court fee is paid, it will be
refunded.
CONCLUSION

Lok Adalats are a blend of all three forms of traditional ADR: arbitration,
mediation, and conciliation. They use conciliation, with elements of arbitration
given that decisions are typically binding, and are an illustration of legal
decentralization as conflicts are returned to communities from whence they
originated for local settlement. Dispute resolution is essentially required for peace
in society, harmony, amicableness and easy accessibility to justice. The usual
procedure of resolution of dispute by courts is time consuming and is an expensive
affair.

Article 39-A of constitution of India provides that The State shall secure that the
operation of the legal system promotes justice, on a basis of equal opportunity, and
shall, in particular, provide free legal aid, by suitable legislation or schemes or in
any other way, to ensure that opportunities for securing justice are not denied to
any citizen by reason of economic or other disabilities. Lok Adalat strives for
making peace and harmony in the society. The Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987
strives for providing free legal aid to the public.
REFERENCES

Primary sources :
Mir. Dara sheko( District Judge)
Mir. Sudipta bhattacharya ( Civil Judge)

Secondary sources:
LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY ACT, 1987
LAW JOURNAL
LEGAL MAGZINES
LEGAL WEBSITES.