P.T. Thomas v Thomas Job

Facts

• A dispute between P.T. Thomas and Thomas Job was referred to a Lok Adalat
• Thomas alleged that the settlement was recorded under pressure/threat without genuine consent
• The Lok Adalat recorded the settlement as an "award"
• Thomas challenged the award arguing lack of free consent

Issue

1. Whether a Lok Adalat award recorded without the genuine free consent of both parties is valid and enforceable.

Held

• Consent is foundational to Lok Adalat jurisdiction; without genuine consent, the award is void.
• The consent must be real, informed, and free from coercion, undue influence, or threat.
• A settlement recorded under pressure or threat is a nullity.
• Challenge available through writ petition under Art. 226/227 (since S.21(2) bars regular appeal).
• The court must examine whether consent was genuinely given.

Ratio Decidendi

The entire legitimacy of a Lok Adalat award rests on consent. If consent is vitiated (by fraud, coercion, undue influence, or misrepresentation), the award is without jurisdiction and a nullity, challengeable through writ jurisdiction despite the no-appeal bar in S.21(2).