CHAPTER- 1

ADR & LOK ADALAT

Introduction to ADR & Lok Adalat

The concept of Conflict Management through Alternative Dispute Resolution
(ADR) has introduced a new mechanism of dispute resolution that is non
adversarial. A dispute is basically ‘lis inter partes’ and the justice dispensation
system in India has found an alternative to Adversarial litigation in the form of
ADR Mechanism. New methods of dispute resolution such as ADR facilitate
parties to deal with the underlying issues in dispute in a more cost-effective
manner and with increased efficacy. In addition, these processes have the
advantage of providing parties with the opportunity to reduce hostility, regain a
sense of control, gain acceptance of the outcome, resolve conflict in a peaceful
manner, and achieve a greater sense of justice in each individual case. The
resolution of disputes takes place usually in private and is more viable, economic,
and efficient. ADR1 is generally classified into at least four types: negotiation,
mediation, collaborative law, and arbitration. (Sometimes a fifth type, conciliation,
is included as well, but for present purposes it can be regarded as a form of
mediation

Conflict is a fact of life. It is not good or bad. However, what is important is how
we manage or handle it. Negotiation techniques are often central to resolving
conflict and as a basic technique these have been around for many thousands of
years. Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) refers to a variety of streamlined
resolution techniques designed to resolve issues in controversy more efficiently
when the normal negotiation process fails. Alternative Dispute Resolution
(ADR) is an alternative to the Formal Legal System. It is an alternative to
litigation. It was being thought of in view of the fact that the Courts are over
burdened with cases. The said system emanates from dissatisfaction of many
people with the way in which disputes are traditionally resolved resulting in
criticism of the Courts, the legal profession and sometimes lead to a sense
of alienation from the whole legal system- thus, the need for Alternative Dispute
Resolution. With the spread of ADR programs in the developed and developing
world, creative uses for and designs for ADR systems are proliferating. Successful
programs are improving the lives of individuals and meeting broad societal goals.
There is a critical mass of ADR experience, revealing important lessons as to
whether, when and how to implement ADR projects. It is against this backdrop,
1
Alternative Dispute Resolution
that this research paper intends to discuss the various ADR mechanisms, the
provisions present in India and the World over, and its peculiarity, implementation
and problems in the Indian context. The various remedies to the situation have
also been discussed.

History of ADR
2
ADR originated in the USA in a drive to find alternatives to the traditional legal
system, felt to be adversarial, costly, unpredictable, rigid, over-professionalised,
damaging to relationships, and limited to narrow rights-based remedies as opposed
to creative problem solving. The American origins of the concept are not
surprising, given certain features of litigation in that system, such as: trials of civil
actions by a jury, lawyers' contingency fees, lack of application in full of the
rule "the loser pays the costs".
Beginning in the late nineteenth century, creative efforts to develop the use of
arbitration and mediation emerged in response to the disruptive conflicts between
labor and management. In 1898, Congress followed initiatives that began a few
years earlier in Massachusetts and New York and authorized mediation for
collective bargaining disputes. In the ensuing years, special mediation agencies,
such as the Board of Mediation and Conciliation for railway labor, (1913)
(renamed the National Mediation Board in 1943), and the Federal Mediation and
Conciliation Service (1947) were formed and funded to carry out the mediation of
collective bargaining disputes. Additional state labor mediation services followed.
3
The 1913 New lands Act and later legislation reflected the belief that stable
industrial peace could be achieved through the settlement of collective bargaining
disputes; settlement in turn could be advanced through conciliation, mediation, and
voluntary arbitration.
At about the same time, and for different reasons, varied forms of mediation for
non-labor matters were introduced in the courts. When a group of lawyers and
jurists spoke on the topic to an American Bar Association meeting in 1923, they
were able to assess court-related conciliation programs in Cleveland, Minneapolis,
North Dakota, New York City, and Milwaukee. Conciliation in a different form
also appeared in domestic relations courts. An outgrowth of concern about rising
divorce rates in the postwar 1940's and the 1950's, the primary goal of these
2
Article by Himesh raj ; history of adr in india
3
www.lawreform.ie ; published on may2015 ; march 2017 updated
programs was to reduce the number of divorces by requiring efforts at
reconciliation rather than to facilitate the achievement of divorces through less
adversarial proceedings. Following privately funded mediation efforts by the
American Arbitration Association and others in the late 1960s, the Community
Relations Service (CRS) of the United States Department of Justice initiated in
1972 a mediation program for civil rights disputes.
Although a small number of individual lawyers had been interested in and were
practicing mediation ADR in Britain for some years, it was only in 1989 when the
first British based ADR company - IDR Europe Ltd. - bought the idea across the
Atlantic and opened its doors for business. This was the start of ADR Group. Since
then many other ADR organizations, including CEDR (Centre for Disput
Resolution), followed suite and assisted in the development andpromotion of ADR
in the UK.
ADR, or mediation (as it is now synonymously known as), is used world-wide by
Governments, corporations and individuals to resolve disputes big or small, of
virtually any nature and in most countries of the world. In developing countries
where most people opt for litigation to resolve disputes, there is excessive over-
burdening of courts and a large number of pending cases, which has ultimately
lead to dissatisfaction among people regarding the judicial system and its ability to
dispense justice. This opinion is generated largely on the basis of the popular
belief, “Justice delayed is justice denied”. However, the blame for the large
number of pending cases in these developing countries or docket explosion, as it is
called, cannot be attributed to the Courts alone. The reason for it being the non-
implementation of negotiation processes before litigation. It is against this
backdrop that the mechanisms of Alternative Dispute Resolution are being
introduced in these countries. These mechanisms, which have been working
effectively in providing an amicable and speedy solution for conflicts in developed
economies, are being suitably amended and incorporated in the developing
countries in order to strengthen the judicial system. Many countries such as India,
Bangladesh and Sri Lanka have adopted the Alternative Dispute Resolution
Mechanism. However, it is for time to see how effective the implementation of
these mechanisms would be in these countries.
4
Various kinds of mechanisms that adopt in ADR

a) Arbitration:
Arbitration, in the law, is a form of alternative dispute resolution specifically, a
legal alternative to litigation whereby the parties to a dispute agree to submit their
respective positions (through agreement or hearing) to a neutral third party (the
arbitrator(s) orarbiter(s)) for resolution.

Species of arbitration

1 Commercial arbitration:Agreements to arbitrate were not enforceable at

commonlaw, though an arbitrator's judgment was usually enforceable (once the
parties hadalready submitted the case to him or her). During the Industrial
Revolution, this situation became intolerable for large corporations. They argued
that too manyvaluable business relationships were being destroyed through years
of expensiveadversarial litigation, in courts whose strange rules differed
significantly from theinformal norms and conventions of business people (the
private law of commerce, or jus merchant). Arbitration appeared to be faster, less
adversarial, and cheaper. Since commercial arbitration is based upon either
contract law or the law of treaties, the agreement between the parties to submit
their dispute to arbitration is a legally binding contract. All arbitral decisions are
considered to be "final and binding." This does not, however, void the
requirements of law. Any dispute not excluded from arbitration by virtue of law
(e.g. criminal proceedings) may be submitted to arbitration.
2 Other forms of Contract Arbitration: Arbitration can be carried out between
private individuals, between states, or between states and private individuals. In the
case of arbitration between states, or between states and individuals, the Permanent
Court of Arbitration and the International Center for the Settlement of Investment
Disputes (ICSID) are the predominant organizations. Arbitration is also used as
part of the dispute settlement process under the WTO Dispute Settlement
Understanding.International arbitral bodies for cases between private persons also
exist, the International Chamber of Commerce Court of Arbitration being the most
important. The American Arbitration Association is a popular arbitral body in the

4
Lectures on Arbitration , Conciliation & ADR systems ; Prof.Rega Surya Rao ; 4 th edition
United States. Arbitration also exists in international sport through the Court of
Arbitration forSport.
3 Labor Arbitration: A growing trend among employers whose employees are
not represented by a labor union is to establish an organizational problem-solving
process, the final step of which consists of arbitration of the issue at point by an
independent arbitrator, to resolve employee complaints concerning application of
employer policies or claims of employee misconduct. Employers in the United
States have also embraced arbitration as an alternative to litigation of employees'
statutoryclaims, e.g., claims of discrimination, and common law claims, e.g.,
claims of defamation. Arbitration has also been used as a means of resolving labor
disputes formore than a century. Labor organizations in the United States, such as
the National Labor Union, called for arbitration as early as 1866 as an alternative
to strikes to resolve disputes over the wages, benefits and other rights that workers
would enjoy. Governments have also relied on arbitration to resolve particularly
large labor disputes, such as the Coal Strike of 1902. This type of arbitration is
commonly known as interest arbitration, since it involves the mediation of the
disputing parties' demands, rather than the disposition of a claim in the manner a
court would act.
Interest arbitration is still frequently used in the construction industry to resolve
collective bargaining disputes.Unions and employers have also employed
arbitration to resolve employee grievances arising under a collective bargaining
agreement.
4 Judicial Arbitration: Some state court systems have promulged court-ordered
arbitration; family law (particularly child custody) is the most prominent example.
Judicial arbitration is often merely advisory, serving as the first step toward
resolution, but not binding either side and allowing for trial de novo.
5 Proceedings: Various bodies of rules have been developed that can be used for
arbitration proceedings. The two of the most important are the UNCITRAL rules
and he ICSID rules. The general rules to be followed by the arbitrator are specified
by the agreement establishing the arbitration. Some jurisdictions have instituted a
limited grace period during which an arbitral decision may be appealed against, but
after which there can be no appeal. In the case of arbitration under international
law, a right of appeal does not in general exist, although one may be provided for
by the arbitration agreement, provided a court exists capable of hearing the appeal.
6 Arbitrators: Arbitrators are not bound by precedent and have great leeway in
such matters as active participation in the proceedings, accepting evidence,
questioning witnesses, and deciding appropriate remedies. Arbitrators may visit
sites outside the hearing room, call expert witnesses, seek out additional evidence,
decide whether or not the parties may be represented by legal counsel, and perform
many other actions not normally within the purview of a court. It is this great
flexibility of action,combined with costs usually far below those of traditional
litigation, which makes arbitration so attractive. Arbitrators have wide latitude in
crafting remedies in the arbitral decision, with the only real limitation being that
they may not exceed the limits of their authority in their award. An example of
exceeding arbitral authority might be awarding one party to a dispute the personal
automobile of the other party when the dispute concerns the specific performance
of a business-related contract. It is open to the parties to restrict the possible
awards that the abitrator can make. If this restriction requires a straight choice
between the position of one party or the position of the other, then it is known as
pendulum arbitration or final offer arbitration. It is designed to encourage the
parties to moderate their initial positions so as to make itmore likely they receive a
favourable decision. To ensure effective arbitration and to increase the general
credibility of the arbitral process, arbitrators will sometimes sit as a panel, usually
consisting of three arbitrators. Often the three consist of an expert in the legal area
within which the dispute falls (such as contract law in the case of a dispute over the
terms and conditions of a contract), an expert in the industry within which the
dispute falls (such as the construction industry, in the case of a dispute between a
homeowner and his general contractor), and an experienced arbitrator.
b) Mediation:
Mediation is a process of alternative dispute resolution in which a neutral third
party, the mediator, assists two or more parties in order to help them negotiate an
agreement, with concrete effects, on a matter of common interest; lato sensu is any
activity in which an agreement on whatever matter is researched by an impartial
third party, usually a professional, in the common interest of the parties.
Stages of Mediation:
Mediation commonly includes the following aspects or stages :
• a controversy, dispute or difference of positions between people, or a need for
decisionmaking or problem-solving;
• decision-making remaining in the parties rather than being made by the neutral;
• the willingness of the parties to negotiate a positive solution to their problem and
to accept a discussion about respective interests and objectives;
• the intent to achieve a positive result through the facilitative help of an
independent and neutral third person.
The typical mediation has no formal compulsory elements, although some common
elements are usually found:
• Each party having a chance to tell his or her story;
• Identification of issues, usually by the mediator;
• The clarification and detailed specification of the respective interests and
objectives,
• the conversion of respective subjective evaluations into more objective values,
• Identification of options;
• Discussion and analysis of the possible effects of various solutions;
• the adjustment and the refining of the accessory aspects,
• memorializing the agreements into a written draft
Due to the particular character of this activity, each mediator uses a method of his
or her own (a mediator's methods are not ordinarily governed by law), that might
eventually be very different from the above scheme. Also, many matters do not
legally require aparticular form for the final agreement, while others expressly
require a precisely determined form. Most countries respect a Mediator’s
confidentiality. Mediation differs the most from other adversarial resolution
processes by virtue of its simplicity, informality, flexibility and economy.
Mediation in Business and Commerce: The eldest branch of mediation applies
to business and commerce, and still this one is the widest field of application, with
reference to the number of mediators in these activities and to the economical
range of total exchanged values. The mediator in business or in commerce helps
the parties to achieve the final goal of respectively buying/selling (a generical
contreposition that includes all the possible varieties of the exchange of goods or
rights) something at satisfactory conditions (typically in the aim of producing a
synallagmatic contract), harmonically bringing the separate elements of the treaty
to a respectively balanced equilibrium. The mediator, in the ordinary practice,
usually cares of finding a positive agreement between (or among) the parties
looking at the main pact as well as at the accessory pacts too, thus finding a
composition of all the related aspects that might combine in the best possible way
all the desiderata of his clients. The subfields include specialised branches that are
very well commonly known: in finance, in insurances, in ship-brokering, in real
estate and in some other particular markets, mediators have an own name and
usually obey to special laws. Generally the mediator cannot practice commerce in
the genre of goods in which he is a specialised mediator.
c) Conciliation:
Conciliation is an alternative dispute resolution process whereby the parties to
a dispute (including future interest disputes) agree to utilize the services of a
conciliator, who then meets with the parties separately in an attempt to resolve
their differences. Conciliation differs from arbitration in that the conciliation
process, in and of itself, has no legal standing, and the conciliator usually has no
authority to seek evidence or call witnesses, usually writes no decision, and makes
no award. Conciliation differs from mediation in that the main goal is to conciliate,
most of the time by seeking concessions. In mediation, the mediator tries to guide
the discussion in a way that optimizes parties needs, takes feelings into account
and reframes representations. In conciliation the parties seldom, if ever, actually
face each other across the table in the presence of the conciliator. (This latter
difference can be regarded as one of species to genus. Most practicing mediators
refer to the practice of meeting with the parties separately as "caucusing" and
would regard conciliation as a specific type or form of mediation practice --
"shuttle diplomacy" -- that relies on exclusively on caucusing. All the other
features of conciliation are found in mediation as well.) If the conciliator is
successful in negotiating anunderstanding between the parties, said understanding
is almost always committed to writing (usually with the assistance of legal
counsel) and signed by the parties, at which time it becomesa legally binding
contract and falls under contract law.
A conciliator assists each of the parties to independently develop a list of all of
their objectives (the outcomes which they desire to obtain from the conciliation).
The conciliator then has each of the parties separately prioritize their own list from
most to least important. She then goes back and forth between the parties and
encourages them to "give" on the objectives one at a time, starting with the least
important and working toward the most important for each party in turn.
The parties rarely place the same priorities on all objectives, and usually have
some objectives which are not on the list compiled by parties on the other side.
Thus the conciliator can quickly build a string of successes and help the parties
create an atmosphere of trust which the conciliator can continue to develop.
e) Negotiation:
Negotiation is the process whereby interested parties resolve disputes, agree
upon courses of action, bargain for individual or collective advantage, and/or
attempt to craft outcomes which serve their mutual interests. It is usually regarded
as a form of alternative dispute resolution.Given this definition, one can see
negotiation occurring in almost all walks of life, from parenting to the courtroom.
In the advocacy approach, a skilled negotiator usually serves as advocate for one
party to the negotiation and attempts to obtain the most favorable outcomes
possible for that party. In this process the negotiator attempts to determine the
minimum outcome(s) the other party is (or parties are) willing to accept, then
adjusts her demands accordingly. A "successful" negotiation in the advocacy
approach is when the negotiator is able to obtain all or most of the outcomes his
party desires, but without driving the other party to permanently break off
negotiations. Traditional negotiating is sometimes called win-lose because of the
hard-ball style of the negotiators whose motive is to get as much as they can for
their side. In the Seventies, practitioners and researchers began to develop win-win
approaches to negotiation. This approach, referred to as Principled Negotiation, is
also sometimes called mutual gains bargaining. The mutual gains approach has
been effectively applied in environmental situations as well as labor relations
where the parties (e.g. management and a labor union) frame the negotiation as
problem solving.
5
Early Neutral Evaluation (ENE): A court-based ADR process applied to civil
cases, ENE brings parties and their lawyers together early in the pre-trial phase to
present summaries of their cases and receive a non-binding asssesment by an
experienced, neutral attorney with expertise in the substance of the dispute, or by a
magistrate judge. The evaluator may also provide case planning guidance and
settlement assistance in some courts. It is purely used as a settlement device and
resembles evaluative mediation.
Fact-finding: A process by which a third party renders binding or advisory
opinions regarding facts relevant to a dispute. The third party neutral may be an
expert on technical or kegal questions, may be representatives designated by the
parties to work together, or may be appointed by the court.
Med-Arb, or Mediation-Arbitration: An example of multi-step ADR, parties
agree to mediate their dispute with the understanding that any issues not settled by
5
www.fdrindia.org ; published on april 2014 ; February 2017 updated
mediation will be resolved, will be resolved by arbitration, using the same
individual to act as both mediator and arbitrator. Having the same individual acting
in both roles, however may have a chilling effect on the parties participating fully
in mediation. In Co-Med-Arb, different individuals serve as neutrals in the
arbitration and mediation sessions, although they may both participate in the
parties’ initial exchange of information. In Arb-Med, the neutral first acts as
arbitrator, writing up an award and placing it in a sealed envelope. The neutral then
proceeds to the mediationstage, and if the case is settled in mediation, the envelope
is never opened.
Judge hosted settlement conference: In this court-based ADR process, the
settlement judge (or magistrate) presides over a meeting of the parties in an effort
to help them reach a settlement. Judges have played a variety of roles in these
conferences, articulating opinions about the merits of the case, facilitating the
trading of settlement offers, and sometimes acting as the mediator.
Minitrial: A voluntary process in which cases are heard by a panel of high level
prinicipals from the disputing sides with full settlement authority; a neutral may or
may not oversee this stage. First, parties have a summary hearing, each side
presenting the essence of their case. Each party can thereby learn the strengths and
weaknesses of their own case, as well as that of other parties. Secondly, the panel
of party representatives attempts to resolve the dispute by negotiation. The neutral
presider may offer her opinion about the likely outcome in court.
Court based minitrial: A similar procedure as that of the above, generally
reserved for large disputes, in which a judge, a magistrate and a non-judicial
neutral presides over one or twoday hearing. If negotiations fail, the parties
proceed to trial.
l)Regulatory Negotiation or Reg-Neg: Used by governmental agencies as an
alternative to the more traditional approach of issuing regulations after a lengthy
notice and comment period. Instead, “agency officials and affected private parties
meet under the guidance of a neutral facilitator to engage in joint negotiation and
the drafting of the rule. The public is then asked to comment on the resulting,
proposed rule. By encouraging participation of interested stakeholders, the process
makes use of private parties’ perspectives and expertise, and can help avoid
subsequent litigation over the resulting rule.”
Ombudsperson: An informal dispute resolution tool used by organizations. A
third party ombudsperson is appointed by the organisation to investigate
complaints within the institution and prevent disputes or facilitate their resolution.
The Ombudsperson may use various ADR mechanisms in the process of resolving
disputes.
Private Judging: A private or court-connected process in which the parties
empower a private individual to hear and issue a binding, principled decision in
their case. The process may be agreed upon by a contract between the parties, or
authorized by statute.
Two-track approach: Used in conjunction with litigation, representatives of
disputing parties who are not involved in the litigation conduct settlement
negotiations or engage in otherADR processes. The ADR track may proceed
concurrently with litigation or an agreed upon hiatus in litigation.
Enumerated above are most of the ADR mechanisms that are practised in countries
all over the world against the backdrop of their different socio-economic-politico-
cultural scenarios.

6
ADR in India
Alternative Dispute Resolution in India is an attempt made by the legislators and
judiciary alike to achieve the “Constitutional goal” of achieving Complete Justice
in India. ADR first started as a quest to find solutions to the perplexing problem of
the ever increasing burden on the courts. A thought-process that started off to
rectify docket explosion, later developed into a separate field solely catering to
various kinds of mechanisms which would resolve disputes without approaching
the Formal Legal System (FLS). The reasoning given to these ADR mechanisms is
that the society, state and the party to the dispute are equally under an obligation to
resolve the dispute as soon as possible before it disturbs the peace in the family,
business community, society or ultimately humanity as a whole.
In a civilised society, principles of natural justice along with the “Rule of Law”
should result in complete justice in case of a dispute. Rule of Law is defined as the
state of order in which events conform to the law. It is an authoritative, legal
doctrine, principle, or precept applied to the facts of an appropriate case. These
definitions give us the indication that the Rule of Law is a authoritative concept
which might lead to a win-lose situation in cases of dispute. Therefore,

6
An introduction to adr systems ; by adv.saleem rahman (high court kerala)
ADR uses the principles of natural justice in consonance with the Rule of Law, in
order to create a favourable atmosphere of a win-win situation. This is much
needed in countries like India where litigation causes a great deal of animosity
between the parties due to the agony caused by the long-standing litigation. ADR,
thus, gains its momentum in India today.
Alternative Dispute Resolution in India was founded on the Constitutional basis of
Articles 14 and 21 which deal with Equality before Law and Right to life and
personal liberty respectively. These Articles are enshrined under Part III of the
Constitution of India which lists the Fundamental Rights of the citizens of India.
ADR also tries to achieve the Directive Principle of State Policy relating to Equal
justice and Free Legal Aid as laid down under Article 39-A of the Constitution.
The Acts which deal with Alternative Dispute Resolution are Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 (discussed in detail later) and the Legal Services
Authorities Act, 1987. Section 89 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 makes it
possible for Arbitration proceedings to take place in accordance with the Acts
stated above.
In India, the quest for justice has been an ideal, which the citizens have been
aspiring for generations down the line. Our Constitution reflects this aspiration in
the Preamble itself, which speaks about justice in all its forms: social, economic
and political. Justice is a constitutional mandate. About half a century of the
Constitution at work has tossed up many issues relating to the working of the
judiciary; the most important being court clogging and judicial delays. Particularly
disturbing has been the chronic and recurrent theme of a near collapse of the
judicial trial system, its delays and mounting costs. Here, the glorious uncertainties
of the law frustrated the aspirations for an equal, predictable and affordable justice
is also a question, which crops up often in the minds of the people. We are a
country of a billion people. The fundamental question is: How do we design and
structure a legal system, which can render justice to a billion people? The
possibility of a justice-delivery mechanism in the Indian context and the
impediments for dispensing justice in India is an important discussion. Delay in
justice administration is the biggest operational obstacle, which has to be tackled
on a war footing. As Justice Warren Burger, the former Chief Justice of the
American Supreme Court observed in the American context: “The harsh truth is
that we may be on our way to a society overrun by hordes of lawyers,
hungry as locusts, and bridges of judges in numbers never before contemplated.
The notion that ordinary people want black-robed judges, well-dressed lawyers,
and fine paneled courtrooms as the setting to resolve their disputes, is not correct.
People with legal problems like people with pain, want relief and they want it as
quickly and inexpensively as possible.” This observation with greater force applies
in the Indian context. Therefore, this explains the need for Alternative Dispute
Resolution in India. In a country, which aims to protect the socio-economic and
cultural rights of citizens, it is extremely important to quickly dispose the cases in
India, as the Courts alone cannot handle the huge backlog of cases. This can be
effectively achieved by applying the mechanisms of Alternative Dispute
Resolution. These are the reasons behind the introduction of ADR in India.

7
Implementation of ADR in India : The implementation of Alternative
Dispute Resolution mechanisms as a means to achieve speedy disposal of justice is
a crucial issue.The sea-change from using litigation as a tool to resolve disputes to
using Alternative Dispute Resolution mechanisms such as conciliation and
mediation to provide speedy justice is a change that cannot be easily achieved. The
first step had been taken in India way back in 1940 when the first Arbitration Act
was passed. However, due to a lot of loop-holes and problems in the legislation,
the provisions could not fully implemented. However, many years later in 1996,
The Arbitration and Conciliation Act was passed which was based on the
UNCITRAL model, as already discussed in the previous section of the paper. The
amendments to this Act were also made taking into account the various opinions of
the leading corporates and businessmen who utilise this Act the most. Sufficient
provisions have been created and amended in the area of Lok Adalats in order to
help the rural and commoner segments to make most use of this unique Alternative
Dispute Resolution mechanism in India. Therefore, today the provisions in India
sufficiently provide for Alternative Dispute Resolution. However, its
implementation has been restricted to just large corporates or big business firms.
Lok Adalats, though a very old concept in Indian Society, has not been
implemented to its utmost level. People still opt for litigation in many spheres due
to a lot of drawbacks. Provisions made by the legislators need to be utilised. This
utilisation can take place only when a definite procedure to incerase the
7
Conciliation & arbitration ; online article ; by prasanth Mathew ; www.guides.library.edu
implementation of ADR is followed. In order to have such an implementation
programme, it is necessary to analyse what the problems are and rectify them.

Lok adalat as a eccentric ADR measure

The emergence of alternative dispute resolution has been one of the most
significant movements as a part of conflict management and judicial reform, and it
has become a global necessity.
Resolution of disputes is an essential characteristic for societal peace, amity,
comity and harmony and easy access to justice. It is evident from the history that
the function of resolving dispute has fallen upon the shoulders of the powerful
ones. With the evolution of modern States and sophisticated legal mechanisms, the
courts run on very formal processes and are presided over by trained adjudicators
entrusted with the responsibilities of resolution of disputes on the part of the State.
The processual formalisation of justice gave tremendous rise to consumption of
time and high number of cases and resultant heavy amount of expenditure.
Obviously, this led to a search for an alternative complementary and
supplementary mechanism to the process of the traditional civil court for
inexpensive, expeditious and less cumbersome and, also, less stressful
resolution of disputes.
As such, ADR has been, a vital, and vociferous, vocal and vibrant part of our
historical past. Undoubtedly, Lok Adalat (Peoples' Court) concept and philosophy
is an innovative Indian contribution to the world jurisprudence. It has very deep
and long roots not only in the recorded history but even in prehistorical era. It has
been proved to be a very effective alternative to litigation. Lok Adalat is one of the
fine and familiar fora which has been playing an important role in settlement of
disputes. The system has received laurels from the parties involved in particular
and the public and the legal functionaries, in general. It also helps in emergence of
jurisprudence of peace in the larger interest of justice and wider sections of society.
Lok Adalat (people’s courts), established by the government settles dispute
through conciliation and compromise. The First Lok Adalat was held in Gujarat in
1982. Lok Adalat accepts the cases which could be settled by conciliation and
compromise, and pending in the regular courts within their jurisdiction. The Lok
Adalat is presided over by a sitting or retired judicial officer as the chairman, with
two other members, usually a lawyer and a social worker. There is no court fee. If
the case is already filed in the regular court, the fee paid will be refunded if the
dispute is settled at the Lok Adalat. The procedural laws, and the Evidence Act are
not strictly followed while assessing the merits of the claim by the Lok Adalat.
Main condition of the Lok Adalat is that both parties in dispute should agree for
settlement. The decision of the Lok Adalat is binding on the parties to the dispute
and its order is capable of execution through legal process. No appeal lies against
the order of the Lok Adalat. Lok Adalat is very effective in settlement of money
claims. Disputes like partition suits, damages and matrimonial cases can also be
easily settled before Lok Adalat, as the scope for compromise through an approach
of give and take is high in these cases. Lok Adalat is a boon to the litigant public,
where they can get their disputes settled fast and free of cost. Parliament enacted
the Legal Services Authorities Act 1987, and one of the aims for the enactment of
this Act was to organize Lok Adalat to secure that the operation of legal system
promotes justice on the basis of an equal opportunity. The Act gives statutory
recognition to the resolution of disputes by compromise and settlement by the Lok
Adalats.
The concept of Lok Adalat was pushed back into oblivion in last few centuries
before independence and particularly during the British regime. This concept is,
now, again very popular and is gaining historical momentum. Experience has
shown that it is one of the very efficient and important ADRs and most suited to
the Indian environment, culture and societal interests. The finest hour of justice is
the hour of compromise when parties after burying their hatchet reunite by a
reasonable and just compromise. This Indian-institutionalised, indigenised and
now, legalized concept for settlement of dispute promotes the goals of our
Constitution. Equal justice and free legal aid are hand in glove. It is, rightly said,
since the second world war, the greatest revolution in the law has been the
mechanism of evolution of system of legal aid which includes an ADR. The
statutory mechanism of legal services includes concept of Lok Adalat in the Legal
Services Authorities Act. The legal aid, in fact, is a fundamental human right.
Indian socio-economic conditions warrant highly motivated and sensitised legal
service programmes as large population of consumers of justice (heart of the
judicial anatomy) are either poor or ignorant or illiterate or backward, and, as such,
at a disadvantageous position. The State, therefore, has a duty to secure that the
operation of legal system promotes justice on the basis of equal opportunity.
Alternative dispute resolution is, neatly, worked out in the concept of Lok Adalat.
It has provided an important juristic technology and vital tool for easy and early
settlement of disputes. It has again been proved to be a successful and viable
national imperative and incumbency, best suited for the larger and higher sections
of the present society and Indian system. The concept of legal services which
includes Lok Adalat is a "revolutionary evolution of resolution of disputes".

8
Levels and Composition of Lok Adalats:
At the State Authority Level - The Member Secretary of the State Legal Services
Authority organizing the Lok Adalat would constitute benches of the Lok Adalat,
each bench comprising of a sitting or retired judge of the High Court or a sitting or
retired judicial officer and any one or both of- a member from the legal profession;
a social worker engaged in the upliftment of the weaker sections and interested in
the implementation of legal services schemes or programmes.
At High Court Level - The Secretary of the High Court Legal Services Committee
would constitute benches of the Lok Adalat, each bench comprising of a sitting or
retired judge of the High Court and any one or both of- a member from the legal
profession; a social worker engaged in the upliftment of the weaker sections and
interested in the implementation of legal services schemes or programmes.
At District Level -The Secretary of the District Legal Services Authority
organizing the Lok Adalat would constitute benches of the Lok Adalat, each bench
comprising of a sitting or retired judicial officer and any one or both of either a
member from the legal profession; and/or a social worker engaged in the
upliftment of the weaker sections and interested in the implementation of legal
services schemes or programmes or a person engaged in para-legal activities of the
area, preferably a woman.
At Taluk Level -The Secretary of the Taluk Legal Services Committee organizing
the Lok Adalat would constitute benches of the Lok Adalat, each bench comprising
of a sitting or retired judicial officer and any one or both of either a member from
the legal profession; and/or a social worker engaged in the upliftment of the
weaker sections and interested in the implementation of legal services schemes or

8
Universal law series on arbitration ; adv.aswinie kumar bansal ; 2 nd edition
programmes or a person engaged in para-legal activities of the area, preferably a
woman.
National Lok Adalat - National Level Lok Adalats are held for at regular
intervals where on a single day Lok Adalats are held throughout the country, in all
the courts right from the Supreme Court till the Taluk Levels wherein cases are
disposed off in huge numbers. From February 2015, National Lok Adalats are
being held on a specific subject matter every month.
Permanent Lok Adalat - The other type of Lok Adalat is the Permanent Lok
Adalat, organized under Section 22-B of The Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987.
Permanent Lok Adalats have been set up as permanent bodies with a Chairman and
two members for providing compulsory pre-litigative mechanism for conciliation
and settlement of cases relating to Public Utility Services like transport, postal,
telegraph etc. Here, even if the parties fail to reach to a settlement, the Permanent
Lok Adalat gets jurisdiction to decide the dispute, provided, the dispute does not
relate to any offence. Further, the Award of the Permanent Lok Adalat is final and
binding on all the parties. The jurisdiction of the Permanent Lok Adalats is upto
Rs. Ten Lakhs. Here if the parties fail to reach to a settlement, the Permanent Lok
Adalat has the jurisdiction to decide the case. The award of the Permanent Lok
Adalat is final and binding upon the parties. The Lok Adalat may conduct the
proceedings in such a manner as it considers appropriate, taking into account the
circumstances of the case, wishes of the parties like requests to hear oral
statements, speedy settlement of dispute etc.

Mobile Lok Adalat - are also organized in various parts of the country which

travel from one location to another to resolve disputes in order to facilitate the
resolution of disputes through this mechanism.As on 30.09.2015, more than 15.14
lakhs Lok Adalats have been organized in the country since its inception. More
than 8.25 crore cases have been settled by this mechanism so far.

JUDICIAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION

9
 Legal system provides resolutions for many different types of disputes. Some
disputants will not reach agreement through a collaborative process. Some disputes
need the coercive power of the state to enforce a resolution. Perhaps more
importantly, many people want a professional advocate when they become
involved in a dispute, particularly if the dispute involves perceived legal rights,
legal wrongdoing, or threat of legal action against them.
The most common form of judicial dispute resolution is litigation. Litigation is
initiated when one party files suit against another. In the United States, litigation is
facilitated by the government within federal, state, and municipal courts. The
proceedings are very formal and are governed by rules, such as rules of evidence
and procedure, which are established by the legislature. Outcomes are decided by
an impartial judge and/or jury, based on the factual questions of the case and the
application law. The verdict of the court is binding, not advisory; however, both
parties have the right to appeal the judgment to a higher court. Judicial dispute
resolution is typically adversarial in nature, for example, involving antagonistic
parties or opposing interests seeking an outcome most favorable to their position.
Retired judges or private lawyers often become arbitrators or mediators; however,
trained and qualified non-legal dispute resolution specialists form a growing body
within the field of alternative dispute resolution (ADR). In the United States, many
states now have mediation or other ADR programs annexed to the courts, to
facilitate settlement of lawsuits.
Some use the term dispute resolution to refer only to alternative dispute
resolution (ADR), that is, extrajudicial processes such as arbitration, collaborative
law, and mediation used to resolve conflict and potential conflict between and
among individuals, business entities, governmental agencies, and (in the public
international law context) states. ADR generally depends on agreement by the
parties to use ADR processes, either before or after a dispute has arisen. ADR has
experienced steadily increasing acceptance and utilization because of a perception
of greater flexibility, costs below those of traditional litigation, and speedy
resolution of disputes, among other perceived advantages. However, some have
criticized these methods as taking away the right to seek redress of grievances in
the courts, suggesting that extrajudicial dispute resolution may not offer the fairest
way for parties not in an equal bargaining relationship, for example in a dispute
between a consumer and a large corporation. In addition, in some circumstances,

9
www.adr measures.c.org ; JDR mechanisms ; updated 2012.
arbitration and other ADR processes may become as expensive as litigation or
more.
10
The primary conclusion of the Report is that JDR, if implemented correctly and
appropriately, can be a useful tool to add to the Ontario Court’s menu of dispute
resolution options, supplementing and complimenting OMMP. The greatest value
for JDR lies in those cases where a) an evaluative opinion by a judge may be
needed to break an unresolved deadlock and other methods have failed; and b)
parties cannot afford a private mediation.

In particular, there may be late stage cases that have already been mediated and
failed, and are now heading towards trial, in which case JDR may offer a last
affordable kick at the settlement can, with the added impetus of judicial
gravitas/evaluation and an imminent trial date. It is worth noting that late stage
cases also give judges a much better evidentiary record to which they can apply
their evaluative toolkit. If judges mediate too early in a case’s life, it would be
much more difficult and ethically problematic for a judge to apply evaluative
analyses and approaches without a suitably matured evidentiary record from full
discovery.

The task force recognized both the potential advantages and disadvantages of JDR
approaches. Any JDR system should be designed to capture those advantages and
to deal with the disadvantages appropriately. As noted in the Report, the main
potential benefits include:

• Enhanced effectiveness (due to judicial gravitas and knowledge);

• The satisfaction of getting one’s “day in court” by a more productive means;
• Greater focus on the issue by counsel (due to the judicial eye on counsel);
• Affordability (to the parties, though there is still a cost to the system in supplying
JDR);
• Greater process powers for the mediator (to compel production, make orders
etc.); and
• The potential for enhanced enforceability of settlements.
Potential concerns that need to be dealt with in any JDR system that is designed
include:

• The risk of coercion of the parties (both intended and unintended);

10
An introduction to ADR measures and mechanisms ; updated article 2012 ; published on 2007.
• The danger of “Justice Light” (effectively adjudication without an evidentiary
record and protections);

• Confidentiality protection- especially in smaller towns;

• Decreased Effectiveness (if judges are untrained or too heavy handed);

• Conflict of interest- if a judge’s goal becomes, even in part, to clear one’s trial
list;

• Perception of fairness- if there contradictions arise between judicial opinions

received in JDR and ultimate trial results;

• Departure from the judicial role and transparency (which makes many judges
nervous about caucusing for example);

• Variable desire of the judiciary to mediate (not all judges are keen);

• Resource limitations– JDR requires facilities, people to administer, training for

judges etc.;

• Compellability of JDR judges as witnesses;

• Immunity of JDR judges from claims;

• How to deal with unrepresented parties, and their desire/need for legal advice
(balancing facilitator neutrality with public policy protection and a Court’s duty to
uphold the law); and

• Establishing jurisdiction for the JDR process.

In my view, the single biggest concern in the above-noted list is the risk of judicial
coercion, even unintended. Having trained many judges in mediation over the
years, I believe that well-trained judicial mediators would not normally intend to
coerce, but judicial words carry great weight. There is a risk that parties may settle
not because it is the best or the right answer for them, but because the judge has
expressed a view on the rights that they are loathe to press back on. Any JDR
mediator needs to be well trained to look for party interests as well as their rights,
and to stay attuned to the risk of unintended coercion.
CHAPTER – 2
LOK ADALAT PROCEEDINGS
ATTENDED

 Day-1
Dated : 15/11/2017

 The court starts at 11:00 am.

 And the bench clerk started calling case numbers.

 OP 123/2007  Petitioner not ready.

 And the case was posted to
20/11/2017.
 OP 513/2007  Petitioner& Respondent
 present before the court.
 They are ready to settle the
dispute.
 & settle the case by 50,000
rupees.
 OP 671/2012  Respondents counsel not
present & the case was posted to
18/12/2017.
 OP 681/2012  R1 & R2 counsels are
present and R2 filed an objection
before the court.
 The case was posted to
18/12/2017.
 OP 730/2013  Petitioner counsel present.
 Submits more evidence
(receipts,bills etc) beforethe court.
 The case was posted to
19/11/2017.
 OP 731/2013  Petitioner not ready and
thecase posted to 19/11/2017 for
the further proceedings.
 OP 227/2014  Respondents counsel prayed
for more time to submits the
appropriate documents before the
court.
 And the court grant the
permission and posted to
12/01/2018.
 OP 228/2014  R1 filed an objection.
 And the case posted to
18/12/2017.
 OP 507/2014  R3 and R4 counsels not
present before the court.
 Petitioner and R1 & R2 are
ready to settle the dispute.
 The case was posted to
19/12/2017 for further
proceedings.
  OP 115/2016  Dispute settled of rupees
15,000.
 I.A 39/2017  Interlocutory application
OP 66/2017 filed.
 Amended written statement
submitted.
 & posted to 18/12/2017.

 Day-2
Dated : 16/11/2017

 The court starts at 11:00 am.

 And the bench clerk started calling case numbers.

 OP 228/2013  Both the parties present.

 Petitioner not ready for futher
evidence submission and prayed for
more time.
 & posted to 19/12/2017.
 OP 229/2013  The case was posted to
19/12/2017 for further proceedings.
 OP 576/2013  Petitioner and counsel present
before the court.
 They are ready for settlement
by the amount priscribed by the court.
 And the case was posted on
19/12/2017 for further proceedings.

 OP 59/2015  Respondents (R1,R3,R4)

unable to produce the documentary
evidences and posted to 19/12/2017.
 OP 214/2015  Respondents counsel not
present & the case was posted to
18/12/2017.
  OP 41/2016  Petitioner counsel present.
 & R2 counsel present.
 Both are ready for the
settlement.
 & posted to 19/12/2017.
 OP 9/2017  Petitioner presents fresh notice
to R1 & R2.
 And posted to 19/12/2017.
 OP 47/2017  Respondents counsel prayed for
more time to submits the appropriate
documents before the court.
 And the court grant the
permission and posted to 19/11/2017.
 OP 52/2017  Both the parties are absent.
 & posted to 19/12/2017.
 OP 74/2017  All the
respondents(R1,R2,R3,R4,R5,R6) and
petitioner present before the court for
the final settlement of the dispute.
 Posted to 19/12/2017.
 OP 76/2017  R1 filed an objection.
 And the case posted to
18/12/2017.
 OP 90/2017  R2 present and submits fresh
notice to R1.
 & posted to 19/12/2017
 OP 97/2017  Respondent absent.
 & posted to 19/12/2017.

 Day-3
Dated : 17/11/2017

 The court starts at 11:00 am.

 And the bench clerk started calling case numbers.

 OP 505/2012  Both the parties are absent

 before the court.
 & posted to20/12/2017.
 OP 506/2012 , OP  Respondents absent.
507/2012 , OP 508/2012 , OP  & posted to 20/12/2017 for
509/2012 further proceedings.
 OP 179/2014  Petitioner present for the
settlement.
 R1 & R2 ready for the
settlement.
 & posted to 20/12/2017.
 OP 180/2014 , OP  Petitioner present and ready
181/2014 for the settlement between opposite
parties with amount priscrribed by
the court.
 & posted to 20/12/2017.
 OP 233/2014  Respondent submits a fresh
notice and amended written
statement.
 And prayed for more time
for further evidence.
 & posted to 20/12/2017.
 OP 247/2014  Respondent counsel absent
and the case was posted to
20/12/2017 for futher proceedings.

 Day-4
Dated : 18/11/2017

 The court starts at 11:00 am.

 And the bench clerk started calling case numbers.

 OP 188/2012  Petitioner not ready.

  & posted to 21/12/2017.
 OP 3/2015  Petitioner present and the
subject matter likely to be settled.
 & posted to 21/12/2017.
 OP 270/2015  Respondents (R1&R4)
unable to produce the documentary
evidences and posted to
19/12/2017.
 OP 271/2015 , OP  Petitioner& Respondent
272/2015 , OP 273/2015 , OP present before the court.
274/2015  They are ready to settle the
dispute.
 & settle the case by 50,000
rupees.
 & posted to 21/12/2017.
 OP 148/2016  Written statement of R2
filed for settlement.
 & posted to 21/12/2017.
 OP 159/2016  Posted to 21/12/2017 for
settlement and both the parties are
ready for settlement.
 OP 186/2016  Petitioner presents fresh
notice to R1 & R2.
 And posted to 21/12/2017.
 I.A 56,57/2017 ,  R1 and R2 present.
OP 158/2016  & posted to 21/12/2017.

 Day-5
Dated : 20/11/2017

 The court starts at 11:00 am.

 And the bench clerk started calling case numbers.
 OP 618/2014  Both the parties present.
 Petitioner not ready for
futher evidence submission and
prayed for more time.
 & posted to 22/12/2017.
 OP 647/2014  R1 & R2 counsels are
present and R2 filed an objection
before the court.
 The case was posted to
22/12/2017.
 OP 7/2015  Petitioner present and the
subject matter likely to be settled.
 & posted to 22/12/2017.
 OP 9/2015 , OP 10/2015 ,  Respondents counsel prayed
OP 8/2015 for more time to submits the
appropriate documents before the
court.
 And the court grant the
permission and posted to
22/12/2018.
 OP 50/2015  R1 filed an objection.
 And the case posted to
22/12/2017.
 OP 53/2017  R2 present and submits fresh
notice to R1.
 & posted to 22/12/2017.
 OP 54/2017 , OP 55/2017  Written statement of R2
filed for settlement.
 & posted to 22/12/2017.
 OP 67/2017  The dispute was not settled.
 Submission of evidence by
the petitioner.
 And the R3 also prayed to
the court for amending the written
statement.
 R2 submits more evidence
before the court.
 & posted to 22/12/2017.
 CHAPTER – 3
INTERACTIVE SESSIONS

CLIENT INTERVIEW
 Interview-1

 Name : Sebastain Paul

Thottathil Veedu,
Plamoottukada,neyyattinkara,
Trivandrum.

1. What is the dispute?

My brother Joseph Paul was working as a coconut tree climber. On
11.02.2014 while he has going to refresh in the nearby pond on the
way he accidently happened to touch a live electric wire snapped
from the nearby electric post and he was electrocuted to death .And I
am here for gettimg compensation.

2. Against whom the suit is filed?

 Assistant Executive Engineer, Kerala State Electricity Board,
neyyatinkara , mini civil station.

3. How many sittings are over?

Two sittings. But i was unable to appear in one sitting and in the other
sitting reperesentatives of KSEB were not present , hence there was
no proceedings and the sitting was adjourned.

4. Whether KSEB agreed to settle the dispute at Lok Adalat?

I don’t know about it.

5. What is your opinion about Lok Adalat?

I think it is easier and it has been told by my advocate that it is free of
cost and after the settlement of the dispute the Court fee paid will be
refunded. It is different than normal courts. If the dispute is settled
here I am totally satisfied.

6. When is the next posting?

The case was again posted to 28/12/2017
 Interview-2

 Name : R.Suresh Kumar,

Nandanam ,house no-16,
Muttathara , Trivandrum.

1. What is the dispute?

I brought a car (model-maruti swift) from Popular Motors karamana
on 23/05/2015. The on-road price of the car is 7.45lakhs with a
extended warranty of 2 years. After 8 months the car suddenly stops
working. I consult with the showroom manager but he denied the
claim. Then I filed a suit before the state consumer forum. Then the
forum transfers the case in to the adalath.
 2. Against whom the suit is filed?
Showroom manager & Sales manager Popular Motors karamana.

3. How many sittings are over?

Three sittings are over.

4. Whether the opposite party agreed to settle the dispute at Lok Adalat?
No , they don’t. Negotiations still continue.

5. What is your opinion about Lok Adalat?

I think it is easier and it has been told by my advocate that it is free of

cost and after the settlement of the dispute the Court fee paid will be
refunded. It is different than normal courts. If the dispute is settled
here I am totally satisfied.

6. When is the next posting?

The case was again posted to 18/12/2017

 Interview-3

 Name : Sreelatha. S
Sree Nivas,house no-56,
Kseavadasapuram,Trivandrum.

1. What is the dispute?

I worked as a receptionist in muthoot finance, medical college
Trivandrum. Five years back I got married and the marriage was
solemnized on 12/02/2013 at rishimangalam temple vanchiyoor
Trivandrum. But this was not knowing by my hubands family. After 4
years he again got married and cheated me. And I sell all my
properties,house,car for him and also I lost my mother because of
him.
2. Against whom the suit is filed?
Prashob Kumar, keezhe veetil, Nedumangad, Trivandrum.

3. How many sittings are over?

This is the first time I appear before.

4. Whether Prashob agreed to settle the dispute at Lok Adalat?

I don’t know about it.

5. What is your opinion about Lok Adalat?

I think it is easier and it has been told by my advocate that it is free of

cost and after the settlement of the dispute the Court fee paid will be
refunded. It is different than normal courts. If the dispute is settled
here I am totally satisfied.

6. When is the next posting?

The case was again posted to 19/12/2017

ADVOCATE INTERVIEW
 CHAPTER – 4
LOK ADALAT AS YOU
EXPERIENCED
Lok Adalats is an improvement on that and is based on Gandhian principles. This
is a non-adversarial system, where by mock courts (called Lok Adalats) are held by
the State Authority, District Authority, Supreme Court Legal Services Committee,
High Court Legal Services Committee, or Taluk Legal Services Committee,
periodically for exercising such jurisdiction as they thinks fit.

Cases that are pending in regular courts can be transferred to a Lok Adalat if both
the parties agree. A case can also be transferred to a Lok Adalat if one party
applies to These are usually presided by retired judge, social activists, or members
of legal profession.It does not have jurisdiction on matters related to non-
compoundable offences. There is no court fee and no rigid procedural requirement
(i.e. no need to follow process given by Civil Procedure Code or Evidence Act),
which makes the process very fast. Parties can directly interact with the
judge,which is not possible in regular courts.the court and the court sees some
chance of settlement after giving an opportunity of being heard to the other party.
The focus in Lok Adalats is on compromise. When no compromise is reached, the
matter goes back to the court. However, 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 judgement 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. Lok Adalat (people’s courts),
established by the government, settles dispute through conciliation and
compromise. The First Lok Adalat was held in Chennai in 1986. Lok Adalat
accepts the cases which could be settled by conciliation and compromise and
pending in the regular courts within their jurisdiction. The Lok Adalat is presided
over by a sitting or retired judicial officer as the chairman, with two other
members, usually a lawyer and a social worker. There is no court fee. If the case is
already filed in the regular court, the fee paid will be refunded if the dispute is
settled at the Lok Adalat. The procedural laws and the Evidence Act are not strictly
followed while assessing the merits of the claim by the Lok Adalat.

Main condition of the Lok Adalat is that both parties in dispute should agree for
settlement. The decision of the Lok Adalat is binding on the parties to the dispute
and its order is capable of execution through legal process. No appeal lies against
the order of the Lok Adalat. Lok Adalat is very effective in settlement of money
claims. Disputes like partition suits, damages and matrimonial cases can also be
easily settled before Lok Adalat as the scope for compromise through an approach
of give and take is high in these cases. Lok Adalat is a boon to the litigant public,
where they can get their disputes settled fast and free of cost.
 CHAPTER -5
CONCLUSIONS & OPINIONS
Because justice is not executed speedily men persuade themselves that there is no
such thing as justice. Sharing the same sentiments, Chief justice Bhagwati said in
his speech on Law Day, “I am pained to observe that the judicial system in the
country is on the verge of collapse. These are strong words I am using but it is with
considerable anguish that I say so. Our judicial system is creeking under the weight
of errors.”Arrears cause delay and delay means negating the accessibility of justice
in true terms to the common man. Countless rounds to the Courts and the lawyers’
chambers can turn any person insane. Even then loitering and wasting time in the
corridors of Courts has become a way of life for a majority of Indians who day by
day are becoming litigous. Some of the main reasons for delay in the disposal of
cases are abnormal increase in the number of cases going to Courts and Tribunals,
mainly due to faulty legislation enacted hurriedly, arbitrary administrative orders,
increased consciousness of one’s rights and gambler’s instinct in a litigant due to
multiplicity of appeals and revisions provided in law.”The disputants want a
decision, and that too as quickly as possible. As the problem of overburdened
Courts has been faced all over the world, new solutions were searched. Various
Tribunals were the answer to the search. In India, we have a number of Tribunals.
However, the fact of the matter is that even after the formation of so many
Tribunals, the administration of justice has not become speedy. Thus, it can be
safely said that the solution lies somewhere else. All over the globe the recent trend
is to shift from litigation towards Alternative Dispute Resolution. It is a very
practical suggestion, which if implemented, can reduce the workload of Civil
Courts by half. Thus, it becomes the bounden duty of the Bar to take this onerous
task of implementing ADR on itself so as to get matters settled without going into
the labyrinth of judicial procedures and technicalities. The Bar should be supported
by the Bench in this herculean task so that no one is denied justice because of
delay.
A focus of structured negotiations is building relationships that encourage open
communication and trust. It necessitates not just good negotiating skills, but also
requires good people skills. That can be a hard sell for parties used to an
adversarial system and used to focusing on the legal position between right and
wrong. However, looking at where the parties agree, rather than where they differ,
can help facilitate a successful resolution. For example, a company is generally
interested in making sure its website is available to all potential customers. Rather
than fight about what is required under the ADA, by using structured negotiations,
the parties work to come up with solutions tailored to the company’s culture that
actually address the problem. The customers now have better access, and the
company not only has made its services available to more customers, but it had a
say in the process ensuring that the solution fit within its structure — all without
the need to resort to protracted, costly and adversarial litigation.

Successful structured negotiations result in a binding and enforceable settlement

agreement not unlike those reached when settling litigation. Feingold also notes the
importance of a positive press release upon resolution. Highlighting the positive
changes that have been made is key in promoting not just that company’s buy-in,
but also encourages other companies in the industry to see structured negotiations
as a viable alternative to litigation. ADR schemes consider cases referred to them
by consumers who have unresolved complaints with their communications
providers (CPs), examine both sides of the dispute and make a judgment, which
could include a financial award and/or requiring the provider to take appropriate
action. ADR can improve the outcome for those consumers whose complaints
might otherwise be unduly lengthy or remain unresolved. It also gives CPs
additional incentives to improve their own complaints handling procedures and to
resolve complaints quickly and effectively. If a change to the time period a
consumer must wait before they can take a dispute to ADR. This will be reduced
from 12 to 8 weeks after the complaint is first lodged with their provider. The
majority of responses to the consultation supported this change.The evidence
shows that the prospect of a complaint being resolved between the consumer and
their provider diminishes substantially after 8 weeks and that the costs for industry
from the change to 8 weeks are expected to be low and believed that by enabling
customers to take their unresolved complaints to ADR .

The evolution of ADR mechanisms was not of that much success. Thereby, the
trend is the imposition of responsibility and duty on Court

i) Courts are authorized to give directives for the adoption of ADR mechanisms by
the parties and for that purpose Court has to play important role by way of giving
guidance. Power is also conferred upon the courts so that it can intervene in
different stages of proceedings. But these goals cannot be achieved unless requisite
infrastructure is provided and institutional frame work is put to place.

ii) The institutional framework must be brought about at three stages, which are:

1. Awareness: It can be brought about by holding seminars, workshops, etc.

ADR literacy program has to be done for mass awareness and awareness
camp should be to change the mindset of all concerned disputants, the
lawyers and judges.
2. Acceptance: In this regard training of the ADR practitioners should be made
by some University together with other institutions. Extensive training
would also be necessary to be imparted to those who intend to act as a
facilitator, mediators, and conciliators. Imparting of training should be made
a part of continuing education on different facets of ADR so far as judicial
officers and judges are concerned.
3. Implementation: For this purpose, judicial officers must be trained to
identify cases which would be suitable for taking recourse to a particular
form of ADR.

iii) ADR Mechanisms to be made more viable: The inflow of cases cannot be
stopped because the doors of justice cannot be closed. But there is a dire need to
increase the outflow either by strengthening the capacity of the existing system or
by way of finding some additional outlets.

iv)Setting up of Mediation Centres in all districts of each state with a view to

mediate all disputes will bring about a profound change in the Indian Legal system.
These Mediation centres would function with an efficient team of mediators who
are selected from the local community itself.

v) Not many Indians can afford litigation. This kind of state of affairs makes
common people, especially rural people, cynical about judicial process. We must
take the ADR mechanism beyond the cities. Gram Nyayalayas should process 60
to 70 percent of rural litigation leaving the regular courts to devote their time to
complex civil and criminal matters.

vi) More and more ADR centres should be created for settling disputes out-of-
court. ADR methods will achieve the objective of rendering social justice to the
people, which is the goal of a successful judicial system.

vii) The major lacuna in ADR is that it is not binding. One could still appeal
against the award or delay the implementation of the award. “Justice delayed is
justice denied.” The very essence of ADR is lost if it is not implemented in the true
spirit. The award should be made binding on the parties and no appeal to the court
should be allowed unless it is arrived at fraudulently or if it against public policy.
 REPORT

This report is based on the role play of negotiation that is conducted

on 27/02/2018.

Vishnu Raj R was the mediator to the proceedings and client 1 name is Mr.Rajeev
Menon who is working in KIMS hospital Trivandrum as administrative and legal
head ,resides at giri nagar street karamana Trivandrum then client 2 is
Mr.Sreekumar R who is worked as service manager Nippon Toyota Trivandrum .

The issue is that we found on hearing the facts is denial of claim. Rajeev Menon ,
brought a Toyota Etios model blue colour car (engine no: 13SED4567893ISZ)
from Nippon Toyota, Vallakadavu Trivandrum on 12/08/2016. The car priced 8.45
lakhs on road include all the taxes and he paid extra 25,000 rupees for extended
warranty and additional paid up insurance.

After 1year (16/01/2017) the car cooling capacity started to decrease & suddenly
the AC stops working. Then he informed the Toyota complaint cell & register the
complaint and their mechanics came and take the vehicle in to the showroom for
further check-up and after the check-up , service manager told me that, the car
stops because the thermal switch and relay was damaged and will cost around
rupees 12,000 including the labour charge. So he went to claim the warranty but
the showroom manager denied the claim. According to their report, the damage is
due to mishandling and such causes will not come under the claim. Because of that
he suffered a heavy loss. Then he filed a suit before the district consumer forum.
Then the forum transfer the case in to adalath.

The mediation proceedings begins at 2:20 PM with the presence of two other
judges. Firstly the mediator introduces himself then he gave the chances to the
client to intoduce themselves.after the introductory part he went on to say some of
the basic rules to follow by both the parties till the end of proceedings.

After that he asked the clients to say about their contentions and after
understanding the problem both the parties argued for their demand. After such
bargaining by both of the parties the mediator found that the contentions made by
both are useless. So the mediator put forward an idea for the settlement of the
dispute and the both the parties agreed with that suggestions and mediator ends
with a successful settlement . then both the parties signed on the settlement deed
and the mediator solve the issue with the interest of both the parties.