Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1044 (PAT)

Most. Anita Devi v. Sachida Nand Singh

2008-07-29

S.C.JHA

body2008
Judgment 1. Heard. 2. This application has been filed by Mostt. Anita Devi and others for enhancement of Award amount in judgment dated 11.9.2002 and Award signed on 30.9.2002 in Claim Case No. 1/1996 passed by Sri Hem Shankar Kumar Singh, 4th Additional District Judge-Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Samastipur. 3. From the records of the case, it appears that an affidavited petition under Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 , was filed on 5.1.1996 which was numbered as M.V.A. Claim Case No. 1/1996 before the Tribunal. As per the office report, the claimant Anita Devi and others who are respondents here were liable to pay Rs.15,000/- as court fees. But they have paid Rs. 10/- only as court fees. So, they were liable to pay Rs. 7,490/- vide office report dated 23.5.1997 and the remaining Rs. 7,500/-was to be paid at the time of filing of the application. 4. The order in respect of payment of deficit court fee continued till 24.11.1998 and, thereafter, no such order seems to have been passed. 5. The learned Presiding Officer of the Tribunal has disposed of the petition filed under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act on 24.2.1998 by which the Insurance Company who was O.P. No. 3 in the court below and appellant here, was directed to pay Rs. 50,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum with effect from the date of filing of the application i.e. 2nd June, 1996, till the date of payment and the applicant Anita Devi has received such amount on 30.1.1999 and in token of receipt such payment, an endorsement seems to have been made in the margin of the order. 6. Even then, it would be relevant to mention that thereafter no such court fee was paid by the applicant. Thereafter, the matter proceeded towards final disposal and it was disposed of on 11.9.2002 wherein United India Insurance Company was directed to pay Rupees five lacs minus Rs. 50,000/- i.e. Rs. 4,50,000/- within a month otherwise to pay with 8% interest thereon. 7. The Insurance Company seems to have complied that order by paying Rs. 6, 76,770/- on 29.4.2004. Thereafter, on 28.2.2005 the Tribunal passed an order in respect of further claim of the respondents for payment of Rs. 1,56,563/- which fell due by way of interest and as such report of the Sheristedar was obtained. As per this report, Rs. 7. The Insurance Company seems to have complied that order by paying Rs. 6, 76,770/- on 29.4.2004. Thereafter, on 28.2.2005 the Tribunal passed an order in respect of further claim of the respondents for payment of Rs. 1,56,563/- which fell due by way of interest and as such report of the Sheristedar was obtained. As per this report, Rs. 7,300/- was to be paid by the appellant challenging the Award on the ground that less compensation amount have been paid. This further report of the Sheristedar is against the report dated 23.5.1997. 8. From the aforesaid deduction of facts, it is admitted position that in compliance of earlier orders, no such court fee, which was required to be paid except Rs. 10/- only, has been paid by the appellants till 28.2.2005 i.e. on 28.2.2005 Rs. 7,300/- as court fee was paid by the appellants. 9. Here, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company has submitted that no issue as required and necessary seems to have been framed in course of hearing by the Tribunal and it has caused prejudice to the Insurance Company. 10. In the aforesaid background, it appears to be a genuine grievance of the Insurance Company that the whole claim has been decided without payment of any court fee by the claimants except Rs. 10/-only. Nowhere, it has been mentioned as to what happened with the earlier office report about the payment of Rs.15, 000/-by way of court fee. 11. So, the entire file is sent back to the Tribunal for framing of issues and decide the matter afresh after giving an opportunity to the respective parties for framing of issues and thereafter decide the matter and if necessary, the parties should also be given an opportunity to lead their respective evidence. An issue should also be framed as to whether the claimants are entitled to realise any interest when they are themselves defaulter in paying the court fee. 12. There should be a clear cut finding in respect of maintainability of the claim of the claimants, without paying proper court fee and if that issue is decided against the claimants-appellants, then the matter should also remain open for decision as to whether it was desirable to levy interest on the Insurance Company for lapses on the part of the claimants in not paying proper court fee for about nine years. 13. 13. The impugned order is, thus, set aside and the entire record is sent back to the Tribunal for deciding the matter afresh preferably within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order alongwith the entire lower court records, after avoiding all sorts of adjournments. 14. This appeal is, accordingly, allowed with the aforesaid directions and observations. 15. The office report which is in the back of the application be xeroxed which must be preserved and should be separately retained alongwith the entire xerox of the order-sheets commencing from the very beginning till end here in the file.