K. Krishnamoorthy of Madurai, A. Ganesan of Thanjavur and Arul of Tiruchi will all have to come back for another round of hearing at the National Lok Adalat, as their cases were among the 694 cases that were not settled at the adalat organised at the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court on Saturday.
The litigants, who arrived in the morning, left the campus at the close of the hearing in the evening, hoping that their cases too would be settled like the 127 cases which reached an amiable settlement on that day during the next National Lok Adalat to be held after two months.
The Lok Adalat or People’s Court, given statutory status under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, is a mechanism for alternative dispute resolution. It gives an opportunity for litigants, whose cases are pending before courts or in a pre-litigation state, to settle their disputes amicably. If the court refers the case to the Lok Adalat and it is resolved then the court fee initially paid is refunded.
The cases heard at the National Lok Adalat relate to motor accident claims, insurance, family disputes, workmen compensation, labour issues and bank recovery.
Advocates feel that this novel dispute redressal mechanism can achieve better disposal rate, if emphasis is given on pre-negotiation. Advocate S. Srinivasa Raghavan opines that pre-negotiation settlement meeting at the National Lok Adalat should be conducted fittingly rather than for namesake. Prior intimation or notice should be given to litigants. He says at times notices do not reach both the parties.
People travel all the way to the court in Madurai from all over southern districts with the hope of amicable settlement of their cases, only to realise that the other parties are not aware of the cases being listed. This will obviously cause great disappointment for poor litigants and also add to the list of unsettled cases, he says.
Mr. Srinivasa Raghavan also stresses the need for posting only the fittest cases on the day of the National Lok Adalat. Pre-negotiation will bring out the fittest cases and they will be settled at the Lok Adalat. Debatable cases can be avoided to save time and stress on litigants, he says. The High Court Bench should also have a permanent Lok Adalat similar to the one functioning in the Principal Seat in Chennai and a Registrar-level monitoring of the Lok Adalat, he adds.
Advocate Velmurugan says the listed cases are predominantly third party insurance claims. When there is a large number of such cases posted for conciliation, the participation of insurance companies, especially those in the private sector, should be ensured. How will a case be resolved if the party and the lawyer representing the insurance company alone are present?, he asks.
It must be ensured that the representatives of insurance companies are also present before the Lok Adalat. Consent should be obtained and their participation ensured, he adds. He recalls that a number of his cases listed in the previous Lok Adalat went unsettled as the representatives of private insurance companies did not turn up.
Advocate G. Prabhu Rajadurai is of the opinion that once the cases are admitted, those concerning the quantum of settlement could be posted before the Lok Adalat.
S. Mohan Kumar, secretary of the Madurai Bar Association, says the award of the Lok Adalat cannot be appealed against or reviewed as it is deemed to be decree of a civil court. However, he says if settlements are obtained through fraudulent means or misrepresentation of facts, there should be a mechanism to review them and impose appropriate cost on those acting fraudulently. Because, ultimately the poor litigant must not suffer, he says.