Judgment :- M.R. Hariharan Nair, J. The question arising for decision in the revision is whether the death of the petitioners' predecessor in consequence of alleged medical negligence can be taken as "accident" for the purpose of S.74(1)(viii) of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 which enables exemption in the manner of payment of court fees. The court below has found in the preliminary order deciding issue No. 2 that it is not an accident and that Court Fees should be paid ad valorem. 2. I have heard both sides. 3. For effective consideration of the question, it is useful to quote S.74(1)(viii) which is an exception to S.22 of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959, here. 74. Special provision regarding suits by registered trade union member of Scheduled Castes etc.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the forgoing provisions of this Act, the Court shall, subject to the provisions of sub-s.(2), admit the plaint in respect of the following kinds of suits even though the fee chargeable under this Act has not been paid and after such admission calculate the amount of court fee chargeable in respect of the plaint under the provisions of this Act, and require the Collector of the District to pay the fee so chargeable. xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx (viii) suits for recovery of compensation arising out of accidents, filed by the injured where the claim does not exceed rupees fifty thousand and filed by the legal heirs of the deceased in such accidents where the claim does not exceed rupees one lakh;" 4. The term "accident" is not defined in the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act. Even though it was argued that the definition of "accident" in the Workmen's Compensation Act can be imported here as the purpose is to benefit legal heirs of victims, I am not impressed by that argument. S.74(1)(viii) of the Act is certainly a beneficial provision which requires a liberal interpretation in favour of the litigant. Nevertheless the Court will be more justified in going into the dictionary meaning of the term that importing the definition given in a labour oriented special legislation. 5. Oxford dictionary defines "accident" as an mishap, misfortune, mischance, mis-adventure, causality, disaster, calamity etc. Merriam Websters Dictionary defines the term as an event occurring by chance or un-intentionally. Nevertheless the Court will be more justified in going into the dictionary meaning of the term that importing the definition given in a labour oriented special legislation. 5. Oxford dictionary defines "accident" as an mishap, misfortune, mischance, mis-adventure, causality, disaster, calamity etc. Merriam Websters Dictionary defines the term as an event occurring by chance or un-intentionally. The Chambers Dictionary defines "accident" as unforeseen or un-expected event, chance, mishap etc. 6. The argument of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that though the death in the instant case occurred due to medical negligence and not due to any vehicular/mechanical/electric accident, as far as the plaintiffs are concerned, such a medical negligence which led to the demise of the patient was totally unforeseen and as such is an accident for them. The death has come as a mishap or an event occurring by chance or as a matter of disaster due to unforeseen or unexpected causes. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand, is that what is contemplated in the Section is only events like motor accidents. There is no such indication available in the Section. According to me, the term "accident" will normally take in all mishaps occurring by chance or caused un-intentionally and even the events happening due to unforeseen circumstances or by chance as far as the plaintiffs in the suits are concerned. Whether there was any human intervention which led to the particular event or not does not appear to be relevent. If the event has occurred unexpectedly and without any design in the popular and ordinary sense of the term, it can very well be taken as an accident. All that it means, is a mishap or an untoward event which was not expected or designed. 7. In the instant case, the allegation is that death of K.K. Babu, the husband of the first plaintiff and father of plaintiffs 2 to 4 was in consequence of the failure on the part of the defendant to perform the surgery with skill and care and to give the necessary post surgical medical care to the said Babu while he was an inpatient and that this negligence resulted in his death. The death was unforeseen as far as the plaintiffs are concerned in so far as it was never expected by them that during and after a surgery, the hospital authorities including the Surgeon and para medical and nursing staff would fail to give adequate and careful surgical and post operative care and medical attention to the patient. I am of the view that the term "accident" used in S.74(1)(viii) of the Act is comprehensive enough to take in such cases also. For the purpose of fixing court fees, the court need not look into the evidence available to prove the averments in the plaint. All that need be looked into is whether on the allegations in the plaint the court fee paid is proper and correct. In the instant case, the claim is for damages of less than Rs.1 lakh and it is made by the legal heirs of the patient who died in an "accident". The claim is exempt from payment of Court fees by plaintiffs. After admission court fee required will be requisitioned from the District Collector. 8. In the circumstances, I am of the view that the court below went wrong in denying the benefit of the Section to the plaintiffs herein. Hence the impugned order is set aside and the revision is allowed. The court below will proceed with the suit in accordance with law.