C. V. RANE, J. ( 1 ) THIS application in revision is directed against the order passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Surendranagar hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal on an application for refund of court-fees made in M. A. C. T. case No. 18 of 1971 on 15th September 1973 ( 2 ) THE petitioners in the above case had made an application for claiming compensation to the extent of Rs. 30 0 under sec. 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act 1939 In accordance with the provisions of Rule 292 of the Bombay Motor Vehicles Rules 1959 hereinafter referred to as the Rules an amount of Rs. 950. 00 was paid as court-fees. The matter was however compromised for Rs. 7 0 The claimants therefore made an application for refund of Rs. 695. 00 out of the amount of Rs. 950. 00paid by them towards the court-fees. The learned Tribunal held that only the amount of Rs. 475. 00 which was half the amount of the court-fees paid by the claimants should be refunded to them. Being aggrieved by the above order the State has come in revision to this court. When the matter came up for hearing before A. D. Desai J. he took the view that the matter involved questions of general import- ance and hence he referred the matter to a larger bench. This is how the matter has come up for hearing before us. ( 3 ) THE provisions as to payment of court-fees in respect of applications under sec. 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act 1939 are contained in Rule 292 of the Rules which reads as under: (1) An Application for compensation under rule 291 where claim is Mr. an amo- unt upto Rs 9999/- shall be accompanied by an amount of ten rupees court fees Stamps: provided that if the person making the application succeeds he shall be liable to pay by way of fee an amount equal to the full advalorem fee leviable on the amount at which the claim is awarded by the Tribunal according to the scale prescribed under article 1 of Schedule I to the Bombay Court Fees Act 1959 less the amount of the fee already paid by him. (2) An application for compensation under rule 291 in respect of a claim of an amount of Rs. (2) An application for compensation under rule 291 in respect of a claim of an amount of Rs. 100 and above shall be accompanied by an amount in court fee stamps equal to one half of the advalorem fee leviable on the amount at which the claim is valued in the application according tile scale prescribed under article I of Schedule I to the Bombay Court Fees Act 1959 provided that if the person making an application succeeds he shall be liable to make good the deficit is any between the full advalorem fee payable on the amount at which the claims awarded by the Tribunal according to the scale prescribed under Article 1 of Schedule to the Bombay Court Fees Act 1959 and the fee already paid by them. As the matter was compromised the claimants claimed refund of half the amount of the court-fees paid by them on the bash of the provisions of sec. 43 (1) of the Bombay Court Fees Act 1959 which provides (1) When suit in a Court is settled by agreement parties before any evidence is recorded or any appeal or cross objection is settled by agreement of parties before it is called on for effective hearing by court half the amount of the fee paid by the plaintiff appellant or respondent on the plaint appeal or cross objections as the case may be shall be repaid to him by the court : provided that no such fee shall be repaid is the amount of fee paid does not exceed five rupees or the claim for repayment is not made within one year from date on which the suit appeal or cross objection was set by agreementrelying on the decision of Divan J. as he then was in the case of MOHAN GANDA V. DRIVER GARASIVA KESHUBHAI SHIVUBHA AND OTHERS 13 G. L. R. 744 the Learned Tribunal has held that sec 43 of the Bombay Court Fees Act us applicable even to the application for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. The finding of the learned Tribunal on the above point is not challenged before us We will therefore proceed on the basis that the claimants are entitled to claim refund of half the amount of the court- fees as provided in sec. 43 of the Bombay Court-fees Act. The finding of the learned Tribunal on the above point is not challenged before us We will therefore proceed on the basis that the claimants are entitled to claim refund of half the amount of the court- fees as provided in sec. 43 of the Bombay Court-fees Act. It is argued by the learned Assistant Government pleader that according to sub-rule (2) of Rule 292 of the Rules read with the proviso to that sub-rule the claimants would have been required to pay only Rs. 510. 00 as court-fees in view of the fact that the claim was awarded only the extent of Rs. 7 0 According to the relevant provisions of the Court-fees Act the party concerned will have to pay Court-fees of the value of Rs 510/- for a claim of Ks. 7 0 awarded by the Tribunal. It is submitted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader that on the basis of sec 43 of the Bombay court-fees Act they can claim the refund of half the above amount which comes to Rs. 255. 00. The learned Tribunal has how taken the view that the claimants are entitled to claim refund of half the amount of the court-fees actually paid by them. Now according to sec. 43 (1) of the Bombay Court-fees Act when a suit is settled by agreement of parties before any evidence is recorded half the amount of the fee paid by the plaintiff shall be repaid to him by the court. It is not disputed that for the purpose of sec. 43 (1) of the Court-fees Act the claimants are to be treated as plaintiffs. Now according to Rule 292 (2) of the Rules an application for compensation under rule 291 in respect of a claim of an amount of Rs. 10 0 and above shall be accompanied by an amount in court fee stamps equal to one-half of the advalorem fee leviable on the amount at which the claim is valued in the application according to the scale prescribed under article 1 of Schedule I to the Bombay Court Fees Act 1959 But for the above concession given to an applicant under the Rules he would have been required to pay full court-fees as prescribed by the Bombay Court Fees Act. While deciding the question as to whether only half the amount of the court-fees actually paid by the claimant or only half the amount of the court-fees which he required to pay on the basis of the amount at which the claim is awarded by the Tribunal should be refunded to him it is necessary to take into consideration as to what would be the position in suits. ( 4 ) IT is not disputed that in a suit for recovery of the amount of Rs. 30 0 the plaintiff would have been required to pay a court fee of the value of Rs. 1 900 If that suit is settled by agreement of parties before any evidence is recorded the plaintiff would be entitled to claim the refund of half the amount of the court-fee actually paid by him irrespec- tive of the amount for which the suit was settled. This would mean that the amount of Rs. 950. 00 will have to be repaid to the plaintiff as contem- plated by sec. 43 (1) of the Bombay Court Fees Act. There is no reason as to why on the basis of the above reasoning half the amount of the court-fees actually paid by the claimants in the instant case should not be refunded to them. Merely because according to the proviso to sub- rule (2) of Rule 292 of the Rules Rs. 510. 00 were payable as court-fees on the basis of the amount of the award sec. 43 of the Bombay Court- Fees Act cannot be interpreted to mean that only half the amount of the court-fees which the claimants were liable to pay should be refunded to them. It is true that according to the proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 292 of the Rules an amount of Rs. 510. 00 can be levied as court fees. But as observed above the claimants have actually paid Rs. 950. 00 as court fees on the basis of the specific provision to that effect made in sub-rule (2) of Rule 292 of the Rules. 510. 00 can be levied as court fees. But as observed above the claimants have actually paid Rs. 950. 00 as court fees on the basis of the specific provision to that effect made in sub-rule (2) of Rule 292 of the Rules. The circumstance that according to sub-rule (2) of Rule 292 of the Rules the claimants have to pay court fee stamp equal to one half of the advalorem fee leviable on the amount at which the claim is valued in the application would not come in the way of their claiming the refund of half the amount of court fees actually paid by them on the basis of sec. 43 of the Bombay Court Fees Act for simple reason that according to sec. 43 half the amount of the fee actually paid by the party concerned is to be refunded to him. In this connection it may be pointed out that according to see. 6 of the Bombay Court Fees Act in suits of certain categories court fees varying from 1 to 1/2 of advalorem fee are prescribed and in spite of that position the plaintiff would be entitled to claim the refund of 1/2 of court fees actually paid by him in the circumstances mentioned in sec. 43 of the Bombay Court Fees Act. Merely because according to sub-rule (2) of Rule 292 of the Rules the claimants have to pay initally 1/2 of advalorem fee it cannot be said that their case for refund of court fees under sec. 43 of the Court Fees Act should be construed in a manner different from the one in which the cases of the plaintiffs who are required to pay court fees varying from 1/12th to 1/2 of advalorem court fees in certain types of suits mentioned in sec. 6 of the Court Fees Act are construed. ( 5 ) THE question can also be judged from a different angle. If as a result of the compromise between the parties an award in the amount of Rs. 13 0 passed the claimants would have been required to pay Rs. 10. 00 more towards the court fees as would be evident from the fact that advalorem fee on the amount of Rs. 13 0 to Rs. 960/- according to Schedule I of the Court Fees Act and in that case it is not disputed that the amount of Rs. 10. 00 more towards the court fees as would be evident from the fact that advalorem fee on the amount of Rs. 13 0 to Rs. 960/- according to Schedule I of the Court Fees Act and in that case it is not disputed that the amount of Rs. 480. 00 could have been refunded to the claimants in view of sec. 43 of the Bombay Court Fees Act. We fail to understand as to why the position should be different in the present case merely because the amount of the award is Rs. 7 0 and advalo- rem fee for which amount comes to Rs. 510/. Looking to the provisions of Rule 292 of the Rules in the light of the provisions of secs. 6 and 43 of the Court Fees Act we are of the view that according to sec. 43 of the Court Fees Act half the amount of the court fees actually paid by the claimants in the proceedings under sec. 110-A of the Moror Vehicles Act 1939 should be refunded to them in the circumstances mentioned in that section. This shows that the order passed by the learned Tribunal is quite according to law. ( 6 ) IN the result the revision application is dismissed. Rule discharged with no order as to costs. Application dismissed. .