Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 1094 (MAD)

Singaram v. Periyasami and another

2004-08-24

V.KANAGARAJ

body2004
ORDER: The above civil revision petition has been filed under Art.227 of the Constitution of India praying to set aside the fair and decretal order dated 11.2.2004 made in I.A.No.265 of 2004 in M.C.O.P.SR.NO. 1039 of 18.11.2003 by the Court of District Judge, Karur. 2. On a perusal of the materials placed on record and upon hearing the leased counsel for the petitioner, this Court is able to assess that the petitioner, intending to file a claim petition for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident for a compensation of Rs.10 lakhs as against the respondents herein, who are respectively the owner and the insurer of the vehicle, has filed a petition in I.A.No.265 of 2G04 under Sec.24(2) praying exemption of the payment of Court Fee of Rs.9,000 on ground of indigent circumstances and since the said application has been dismissed by the Tribunal below, he has come forward to file the above civil revision petition. 3. Today, when the above matter has been taken up for admission in the presence of the learned counsel for the petitioner, instead of ordering notice to the respondents, this Court has taken up the above civil revision petition for final disposal since it is only a matter regarding payment of Court fee and in no way they are going to be prejudiced in whatever way the matter is going to be decided. 4. During arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that under the Motor Vehicles Act, there is no necessity for the petitioner to plead and prove the indigent capacity since the exemption in payment of Court fee is only temporary and the petitioner has to pay the Court fee before he enjoys the Award of the Tribunal. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner has pressed into service Rule 24(3) of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal Rules, 1989 wherein it has been provided: "24. Every application under Sub-sec.(1) of Sec. 166 of the Act for payment of compensation shall be accompanied by a fee of Re. 1 (Rupee one only) in the form of Court fee stamp, if the claim in a case of accident is confined to special damage is and if any further general damage is claimed, an ad valorem shall be charged on the aggregate of the special and general damage claims.... 1 (Rupee one only) in the form of Court fee stamp, if the claim in a case of accident is confined to special damage is and if any further general damage is claimed, an ad valorem shall be charged on the aggregate of the special and general damage claims.... (3) The Claims Tribunal may, in its discretion exempt and party from the payment of fees prescribed under Sub-rule (1). Provided that where a claim of a party has been accepted by the Claims Tribunal, the party shall have to pay the prescribed fees, exemption in respect of which has been granted initially before a copy of the judgment is obtained...." 5. Thus, it is clear from proviso (1) to Rule 24(3) of the above Rules that the Claims Tribunal may grant the exemption of Court fee and the party who has been granted such an exemption, has to pay the prescribed fees before a copy of the judgment is obtained. Therefore, it is not a total exemption as has been wrongly connoted by the lower Tribunal. Therefore, the above civil revision is entitled to be allowed, since it is a welfare legislation. In result, (i) the above civil revision petition is allowed, (ii) The fair and decretal order dated 11.2.2004 made in I.A.No.265 of 2004 in M.C.O.P. SR.No.1039 of 18.11.2003 by the Court of District Judge, Karur is set aside, (iii) The petition in I.A.No.265 of 2004 on the file of the District Judge, Karur stands allowed. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.