JUDGMENT 1. 1. This first appeal has been preferred by the legal representatives of Sheo Nath, who was defendant in the suit filed by respondent plaintiff under the provisions of Fatal Accident Act, 1855, against the order dated 31.3.2000 passed by Addl. District Judge Bandikui in civil suit No.4/98, whereby the decree for Rs. 90,000/- was passed against the appellants. 2. A claim application was filed under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur on 17.4.85, mentioning the fact that on 17.10.1984 the defendant requested the injured Sheo Nath to help him in the work of thresher, belonging to Har Sahai, for extracting grain of Bajra. When the injured Sheonath was doing the work of putting the material in thresher, which tresher was not in motion at the time, the defendant without any warning pushed the starter of thresher with the result right hand of Sheonath was crushed and severed upto elbow. The injured was admitted in SMS Hospital, Jaipur. The FIR for the offence under Section 338, 337 and 279 Indian Penal Code was also registered. The claimants had claimed the compensation on the ground that because of carelessness of the defendant, the hand of the injured had been severed upto elbow. He had become disabled. The total amount Rs. one lac was claimed. Lateron the appellant had filed the present suit as the MACT had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute. 3. The following issues were framed: 1. Whether because of negligence of defendant on 17.10.84 the hand of the injured has been severed? 2. Whether the injured is entitled to recover an amount Rs. one lac as compensation from the defendant? 4. The issues No. 3 & 4 were in regard to limitation and court fees. 5. After considering the submission of both the parties, the trial court decided all the issues in favour of injured and had awarded Rs. 90,000/- as damages with the interest of 12% per annum from 31.3.2000, if the amount is not paid within three months. 6. Being aggrieved against the decree under Fatal Accident Act, the present appeal has been filed by the defendants. 7. It is the case of the claimant that initially the claim application was filed under Motor Vehicles Act which was dismissed for want of jurisdiction. 6. Being aggrieved against the decree under Fatal Accident Act, the present appeal has been filed by the defendants. 7. It is the case of the claimant that initially the claim application was filed under Motor Vehicles Act which was dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Thereafter the present suit was filed with an application under Order 33 Rule 2 Civil Procedure Code on 29.7.86 for exemption of court fee, which application was dismissed by trial court vide order dated 6.8.92. The trial court had directed the plaintiff to file a fresh suit after paying entire court fees and then the suit was filed on 11.8.92 under the provisions of Fatal Accident Act, wherein the amount of Rs. 1 lac only was claimed. 8. In the written statement filed by defendants, the averments of the suit were denied. It was further pleaded that no such accident had taken place and that the defendants were involved because of the enmity of the plaintiff. It was also pleaded that the suit filed in the year 1992 regarding the incident of 1984 is barred by limitation. 9. The plaintiff had produced PW.1 Banwari Lal, PW 2 Shiv Ram, PW.3 Dr. Anil Mehra, PW.4 Nanga and PW.5 Bharat Singh along with documentary evidence. Whereas the defendants had produced DW.1 Har Sahai, DW.2 Jagdish, DW.3 Hanuman and DW.4 Rewar. DW.1 Har Sahai was one of the legal heir of Sheo Nath. 10. Counsel for the appellant states that no case had been made out and the evidence as put up by plaintiff is not believable. It is also one of the contention that even assuming Sheo Nath, the original defendant, was negligent, it cannot be said that after his death the legal heirs are responsible. 11. The record has been called for. I have gone through the record. 12. PW.1 Banwari Lal, the injured, had appeared as witness. He stated that on 17.10.84 when he was sleeping at about 3.00 am of the night, the defendant Sheo Nath called him to work in the process of thresher, to which he had initially declined, but ultimately agreed to help him. Har Sahai and Jagdish were doing the thresher work, but they had asked him to do the work of putting material in thresher for threshing. The plaintiff had declined to do so but on their pursuation he agreed. Har Sahai and Jagdish were doing the thresher work, but they had asked him to do the work of putting material in thresher for threshing. The plaintiff had declined to do so but on their pursuation he agreed. As soon as he had pushed the material inside the thresher, Har Sahai had started the thresher as a result his right hand which was in thresher got amputated there and then. He was treated in SMS Hospital Jaipur. The report of the incident was also made in police station. He has stated that he has become disabled and he cannot do any work from right hand. He claimed Rs. 1 lac. In cross examiantion, he has stated that he was student of Ist year in Agriculture College. He has further stated that he had no enmity with Sheo Nath at all. He admitted that the defendant had not forced him to do the work on thresher machine. 13. PW.2 Shiv Ram had corroborated the statements of Banwari Lal. He stated that after hearing cries of Banwari, he had gone to the field of Sheo Nath. PW.3 Dr. Anil Mehra, who had treated Banwari in hospital, had stated that half of the right arm of Banwari had been severed. PW.4 Nanga has stated that in the morning time he had heard cries and visited the field and saw Banwari near thresher, whose right hand had been severed. He does not know as to what had happened, but he had seen Banwari there and his right hand was severed. PW.5 Bharat Singh had recorded the FIR of the incident. 14. The defence evidence was produced by the defendant. DW.1 Har Sahai had totally denied the incident. DW.2 Jagdish Prasad has also denied the incident. DW.3 Hanuman has stated that he knows Shiv Ram son of Nanga, who is resident of Bhitarwadi and not of Dwarapura, which is at a distance of two kilometers. 15. As regards the point of limitation the objection was taken that the suit is barred by limitation. It is not denied that the plaintiff respondent had been ill-advised and had filed the claim application before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. As soon as the case was returned to plaintiff, he immediately filed the same before the Civil court with an application for exemption of the court fees. It is not denied that the plaintiff respondent had been ill-advised and had filed the claim application before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. As soon as the case was returned to plaintiff, he immediately filed the same before the Civil court with an application for exemption of the court fees. However, on dismissal of the application, the plaintiff filed the suit within the stipulated period. In my opinion, the trial court had rightly held that the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act is available to the plaintiff and the suit had been rightly entertained by invoking the provisions of Section 13 and 14 of the Limitation Act. 16. In case of (1) Ramesh Chandra and others v. Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Bhopal and others, AIR 1982 Madhya Pradesh 165 , it was held that the suit for recovery of damages under Section 1-A and 2 of Fatal Accidents Act could only be maintained by a person who is a dependent of the deceased under Section 1-A or legal representative of the deceased. 17. In case of (2) Xavier @ Appachan v. Fr. George, AIR 1993 Kerala 127, it was held that on rejection of application to sue as pauper, the court fees is to be-paid at the rate as on date of filing of application and not on date of rejection. 18. Learned counsel for appellant relying on the judgment in case of Zavier Appachan, (supra) submits that instead of paying the court fees, the plaintiff had filed the fresh suit, therefore, the suit is barred by limitation and it cannot be entertained. 19. It goes without saying that the provisions of Section 1-A and 2 of Fatal Accidents Act is applicable only to the case where the suit is filed by dependent or legal representative of the deceased to claim compensation under Section 2 of the Act for loss to the estate of deceased. It is true that damages recoverable for loss to the estate are in respect of loss of expectation of life of the deceased and not in respect of loss of earnings of the lost years' meaning thereby the period during which the deceased would have continued to earn but for his death in the accident. It is true that damages recoverable for loss to the estate are in respect of loss of expectation of life of the deceased and not in respect of loss of earnings of the lost years' meaning thereby the period during which the deceased would have continued to earn but for his death in the accident. Apparently in the present case the provisions of Fatal Accidents Act were not applicable, however, if the suit is not maintainable under Fatal Accidents Act, the suit is maintainable for claiming damages as in recovery suit. 20. Section 4 of Rajasthan Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1961 provides that no document which is chargeable with fee under this Act shall be filed, exhibited or recorded in, or be acted on or furnished by any court including the High Court, or shall be filed, exhibited or recorded in any public office or be acted on or furnished by any public office, unless in respect of such document there be paid a fee of an amount not less than that indicated as chargeable under this Act. Section 21 of the Act provides that in a suit for money (including a suit for damages or compensation, or arrears of maintenance, of annuities, or of other sums payable periodically, fee shall be computed on the amount claimed. Provided that in an action or suit for damage under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 (Central Act 13 of 1855) a fixed fee of rupees ten shall be payable on the plaint or the memorandum of appeal. 21. From the above narration of facts, following questions emerge in this case. 1. the plaintiff had suffered severance of right hand on the day of incident and he was admitted in SMS Hospital Jaipur and remained under treatment upto 31.10.84; 2. there is evidence to prove that right hand of plaintiff was severed while doing the work of thresher due to the negligence of defendant; 3. there is no evidence to show as to why the plaintiff would involve the defendant falsely nor there is any evidence to show that there was any enmity between the parties. 22. It is general practice in the village that during the threshsing season normally the persons do seek help from each other for threshing grain and the present case seems to be one of the same nature. 22. It is general practice in the village that during the threshsing season normally the persons do seek help from each other for threshing grain and the present case seems to be one of the same nature. The plaintiff, who was student at the time, did go to help the defendant on asking by defendant for threshing work in the morning had met with the accident. The only question which remains for determination is whether in the circumstances of the case, the plaintiff is entitled to some compensation or not? 23. The accident had occurred because of negligence of defendant, while doing the threshing work. The plaintiff was injured while pushing material in thresher when the defendant acted negligently and had started the thresher and the plaintiff suffered severance of right hand. The plaintiff has categorically stated that he had told the defendant that he is not aware of the operation of thresher; when he was pushing material it was the deendant who had started the thresher without warning, the plaintiff had to suffer loss of right arm. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that there was no negligence of the defendant. 24. The suit was filed against Sheo Nath and Har Sahai. Laer on because of death of Sheo Nath his legal representatives were brought on record. There is cogent evidence on record to prove that because of negligence of the defendant the plaintiff had to suffer severance of the right hand upto elbow. The defendant had only denied the incident. There is no alternative story put by defendant as to how the plaintiff could have suffered such an injury, specially when the plaintiff and defendants are belonging to the same village. In my opinion, the trial court has rightly believed the story put by plaintiff on the cogent evidence brought on record, when even the report was made to police. 25. The trial court has observed that after the accident on 17.10.84, the plaintiff had filed the claim application under Motor Vehicles Act on 17.4.85, which had been rejected on the point of jurisdiction vide Ex.5. 25. The trial court has observed that after the accident on 17.10.84, the plaintiff had filed the claim application under Motor Vehicles Act on 17.4.85, which had been rejected on the point of jurisdiction vide Ex.5. Then the plaintiff filed the suit on 31.7.86 along with the application under Order 33, Rule 2 Civil Procedure Code as per Ex.6, which was not accepted and the same application was rejected on 6.8.92 (Ex.8) with the direction that the plaintiff should file the suit within a period of one month. The suit was filed on 11.8.92. The trial court had come to a finding that the plaintiff had filed the case in different courts and had ultimately filed the instant suit within the stipulated period as granted by the court itself. Therefore, the suit was to be treated within limitation in view of the provisions of Section 13 and 14 of the Limitation Act. I fully agree with the findings and reasons recorded by the trial court on point of Issue No.3. 26. In regard to issue No.4, the suit was filed with court fees of Rs. 10/- under Fatal Accidents Act, the trial court had found that in view of the provisions of Section 21 of the Rajasthan Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1961 the court fees of Rs. 10/- only was to be affixed. In my opinion, the trial court has not properly appreciated the question of levying the court fees. The suit can only be filed under Section 1-A by the representative of deceased and not by the injured and if the inured is to file the suit, the required court fee is to be affixed. I agree with the submission of counsel for appellant that court fees has not been affixed properly. The finding of the trial court on issue No.4 is required to be reversed with the direction to respondent to affix the required court fees within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 27. For the reasons and discussions made above, the findings on issues No.1, 2 and 3 are affirmed and the appeal is dismissed. In regard to issue No.4, it is directed that the respondent shall now pay the required deficient court fees on the amount of one lac at the rate prevalent at the time of filing of the suit. 27. For the reasons and discussions made above, the findings on issues No.1, 2 and 3 are affirmed and the appeal is dismissed. In regard to issue No.4, it is directed that the respondent shall now pay the required deficient court fees on the amount of one lac at the rate prevalent at the time of filing of the suit. The court fees be affixed within a period of three months.With the above observations and directions the first appeal is disposed of.Appeal disposed of. *******