JUDGMENT : NRLN, J. The writ petition is filed challenging the Award dated 27-10-2009 of Lok Adalat Bench, Guntur in Succession OP No.18 of 2004 on the file of the court of IV Additional District Judge, Guntur insofar as it relates to the depriving of the petitioner’s right from family pension as illegal and arbitrary and against principles of natural justice. 2. Consequent on the death of the husband of the petitioner by name Viswanadham, she along with her children who are respondents 7 and 8 in this writ petition filed an application for issuance of a Succession Certificate for the death family benefits due to late Viswanadham who is said to have died as an employee of LIC. He was said to have died on 02-12-2003. It was further alleged that the first respondent is the wife of one Potluru Venkaiah and she was a concubine of the deceased. It was further pleaded that the petitioner was nominated to receive the family pension benefits but however the 1st respondent is claiming the same. The deceased has also left behind an insurance policy of Rs.1 lakh. Hence the application. Subsequently, the children of the 1st respondent through the deceased were added as parties. While the matter stood thus, the matter was referred to the Lok-Adalat and an award was passed under Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act,1987 (for short “the Act”) by a Presiding Officer of the Lok Adalat who is the Senior Civil Judge and its member. The award is as follows:- (1) The succession stamp duty paid by the petitioners shall be returned to the petitioners. (2) The petitioners and the respondents, 1, 4 and 5 agreed to receive the death benefits of K.Viswanadham i.e.,. gratuity, Leave encashment, Insurance, Salary arrears, Provident Fund and G.I S.I equally among themselves. (3) The petitioners 1 to 3 shall be paid Rs.1 lakh in the pending pension amount and the respondents 1, 4 and 5 shall be paid the balance pending pension amount lying with the respondents 2 and 3. (4) The 1st respondent is entitled for family pension of Kataru late Viswanadham and the petitioners and other respondent did not raise any objection whatsoever. (5) The petitioners and the respondents shall bear their own costs. (6) The petitioner is allowed as per the terms of the compromise. (4) The 1st respondent is entitled for family pension of Kataru late Viswanadham and the petitioners and other respondent did not raise any objection whatsoever. (5) The petitioners and the respondents shall bear their own costs. (6) The petitioner is allowed as per the terms of the compromise. The award was signed by all the parties and accepted by the Bench and recorded the same from the terms of the compromise. 3. Aggrieved by the clause (iv) of the Award passed by the Lok-Adalat, which is under challenge is vitiated by illegalities and against the provisions of the Act. It is useful to refer to Section 21(2) of the Act, which reads as under:- “Every award made by a Lok Adalat shall be final and binding on all the parties to the disputes and no appeal shall lie to any court against the award.” 4. Under Section 19(5) of the Act, the Lok Adalat has no jurisdiction in respect of any case or matter relating to an offence not compoundable under any law. 5. Evidently, as can be seen from the award apart from the writ petitioner herein, her sons also joined in accepting the award and singed. Assuming to be that the petitioner is illiterate, her son who also joined, appears to be educated and signed in English. As can be seen from the contents of the affidavit at page No.3, “ I further submit that as per the mediation of elders I signed on the compromise petition along with respondents 4 to 8” and “I respectfully submit that without my consent it is mentioned in the compromise petition that the 4th respondent is entitled for family pension. The same was neither informed to me nor read over to me. Even in the Lok Adalat the same was not informed to me. 6. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner is not disputing the other terms of the award and she is only attacking the right of pension which is in clause No.4. It is further pertinent to note that she is not disputing the apportionment of the pending pension as agreed in clause No.3. It was agreed that the petitioner along with her children shall be paid Rs.1 lakh from the pending pension. Under Clause.4 the future pension is to be taken by the 1st respondent. It is further pertinent to note that she is not disputing the apportionment of the pending pension as agreed in clause No.3. It was agreed that the petitioner along with her children shall be paid Rs.1 lakh from the pending pension. Under Clause.4 the future pension is to be taken by the 1st respondent. Therefore, a reading of the award clearly goes to show that there was a consensus and part of the pension is also given as a lumpsum to the petitioner. Therefore, the consciousness of the petitioner in accepting the terms cannot be doubted. There are absolutely no allegation of fraud or coercion in arriving at the compromise or signing of the award. She is also represented by counsel at the time when the award was passed. As can be seen from the other terms of the award, there is nothing detrimental to the interest of the petitioner and even otherwise the 1st respondent is being treated as a wife of the deceased and no legal provision under pension Rules is brought to our notice disentitling her for pension. The purpose of the Lok Adalat is for the expeditious and comfortable settlement of issues between the parties and when there is no egregious fraud vitiating the award of the Lok Adalat, she cannot be allowed to challenge the award. The writ petition is absolutely devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed at the stage of admission. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. No order as to costs.