Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 538 (ORI)

CHANDRAKANTI DAS v. STATE OF ORISSA

2009-07-22

I.M.QUDDUSI, S.R.SINGHARAVELU

body2009
JUDGMENT I. M. QUDDUSI, ACTG. C. J. ( 1 ) BY means of this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite party No. 5 i. e. 1st m. A. C. T. , Mayurbhanj, Baripada to disburse the amount settled through Lok Adalat to them without demanding any court-fee on the awarded amount. ( 2 ) IN view of the above prayer, the question before this Court is whether the claimant in whose favour the accident claim has been settled through Lok Adalat is liable to deposit the court-fee first and thereafter get a certification from the MACT and on the basis of the certificate receive back from the collector the full amount of court-fee or he can receive the claim even without depositing the court-fee, if not already deposited. ( 3 ) IN the instant case the petitioners are the legal heirs of the deceased-Siba Sankar das, who died on 3-7-2007 in a road accident and they filed the case before the Motor accident Claims Tribunal, Mayurbhanj, baripada claiming compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short 'the Act, 1988'), which was registered as Misc. Case No. 116 of 2007. They did not pay court-fees at the time of filing of the claim petition and their claim petition was referred to the Zonal Mega Lok Adalat conducted at Balasore on 1-11-2008. The case was amicably settled in the Lok Adalat and an award, with the consent of the Insurance companies, to the tune of Rs. 4,98,000/- has been passed in favour of the claimants. Consequently, the Insurance Company deposited the awarded amount in shape of cheques in the name of the claimants as per terms and conditions decided between the parties in the said Lok Adalat. But since no court-fee was paid, the learned 1st MACT insisted the claimants to deposit the court-fees. Hence, the instant writ petition. Consequently, the Insurance Company deposited the awarded amount in shape of cheques in the name of the claimants as per terms and conditions decided between the parties in the said Lok Adalat. But since no court-fee was paid, the learned 1st MACT insisted the claimants to deposit the court-fees. Hence, the instant writ petition. ( 4 ) BEFORE proceeding further, it is necessary to peruse sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (in short 'the Act, 1987'), which is reproduced as under : "every award of the Lok Adalat shall be deemed to be decree of a civil Court or, as the case may be, an order of any other Court and where a compromise or settlement has been arrived at, by a Lok Adalat in a case referred to it under sub-section (1) of Section 20, the court-fee paid in such case shall be refunded in the manner provided under the Court-fees Act 1870. " ( 5 ) IN view of the above-quoted provisions and to avoid any conflict with the Court-fees act, the Court-fees Act was amended by an orissa Amendment by amending Section 13 (2 ). Sub-section (2) of Section 13 is quoted below : " 13 (2) Where a compromise or settlement has been arrived at by a Lok Adalat in a case referred to it under sub-section (1) of Section 20 of Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, the Court by which the case was so referred to the Lok Adalat shall grant a certificate to the party or every party to the case who paid any court-fee in that case, authorizing him to receive back from the Collector the full amount of the fee so paid. " ( 6 ) HERE it is also necessary to quote the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 22 of the Orissa Motor Vehicles (Accident claims Tribunals) Rules, 1960 (in short 'the rules, 1960') which is reproduced as under : "22 (2) The Claims Tribunal may, in its discretion exempt a party from the payment of fee prescribed under sub-rule (1) : provided that where the claim of a party is accepted whether in full or in part, by the claims Tribunal, the party shall be liable to pay the fees exempted under this sub-rule, at the time of receiving the award. " ( 7 ) BEFORE considering the question after making cumulative study of the above-quoted provisions, it is necessary to go through the preamble of the Act, 1987 which reads as under : "an Act to constitute legal services authorities to provide free and competent legal service to the weaker sections of the society to ensure that opportunities for securing justice are not denied to any citizen by reason of economic or other disabilities and to organize Lok Adalats to secure that the operation of the legal system promotes justice on a basis of equal opportunity. " ( 8 ) THEREFORE, the object of the Act, 1987 is to provide free and competent legal service to the weaker sections of the society for the purpose of ensuring that opportunities for securing justice are not denied to any citizen by reason of economic or other disabilities, meaning thereby that if a person is unable to pay court-fee and his matter has been settled by the Lok Adalat, he may not be required to pay the court-fees. But in Section 21 of the act, as quoted above, it has been provided that the court-fees paid in the cases referred to Lok Adalat and settled through Lok Adalat shall be refunded in the manner provided under the Court-fees Act, 1870. Therefore, the interpretation of the same is that if a party has already paid the court-fees and his claim has been settled by the Lok Adalat, he is to get refund of the court-fees. Therefore, the plain and natural interpretation of this provision is that court-fee is exempted in the cases where the matter is settled through Lok adalat. Therefore, the interpretation of the same is that if a party has already paid the court-fees and his claim has been settled by the Lok Adalat, he is to get refund of the court-fees. Therefore, the plain and natural interpretation of this provision is that court-fee is exempted in the cases where the matter is settled through Lok adalat. ( 9 ) AT this juncture, it is also necessary to notice that under sub-rule (2) of Rule 22 of the Rules, 1960, as quoted above, it is the jurisdiction of the Accident Claims Tribunal to exempt a party from the payment of court-fees at the time of filing of the claim petition with the condition that if the claim of the parties is accepted, the party shall be liable to pay the fees exempted by the Tribunal meaning thereby that if a party has not paid the fees prescribed at the time of filing of the claim petition and the Court did not insist the party to pay the fee, it would be deemed that the Tribunal has exempted the payment of court-fee under sub-rule (2) of Rule 22 of the Rules, 1960. ( 10 ) THEREFORE, in the above circumstances, if the court-fee was exempted or deemed to be exempted at the time of filing of the claim petition and the case is referred to the Lok adalat and an award is made by the Lok adalat, no court-fee should be payable and in such circumstances, the proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 22 of the Rules, 1960 would not be applicable as the court-fee is not payable in the matters settled by the Lok Adalats. Sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Act, 1987 provides regarding refund of the court-fees in case the same is paid by the party. But the question of refund would not arise when no court-fee was paid earlier. ( 11 ) THE Act, 1987 does not provide anywhere that in case where court-fee has not been paid and the matter is settled through lok Adalat, the party shall be insisted to pay the court-fee first and only then the award would be liable to be executed with a certificate of refund of court-fee. The Act is silent about such a situation. It only provides regarding refund of court-fees. The Act is silent about such a situation. It only provides regarding refund of court-fees. Therefore, this provision would not be applicable where the party has not paid any court-fees at all and his matter has been referred to the Lok Adalat without insisting to pay the court-fees. ( 12 ) FURTHERMORE, there may be another circumstance i. e. if an award is settled in favour of a party through Lok. Adalat and he has no money for payment of court-fees, the award would not be able to be executed meaning thereby that he will not be able to get the amount till he arranges the amount of court-fees though the same is laible to be refunded to him and, therefore, there is no sense to insist a party to arrange the court-fee and then get the award and the court-fees refunded. In such case, it will frustrate the very preamble of the Act, 1987. ( 13 ) IN the result, we allow this writ petition and direct that the petitioners shall not be insisted to pay the court-fee and accordingly the 1st Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mayurbhanj, Baripada (opposite party no. 5) is directed to disburse the awarded amount to the petitioners, who are the legal heirs of the deceased-Siba Sankar Das without further delay. Registrar (Judicial) of this Court is directed to send a copy of this order to the orissa Legal Services Authorities, Orissa high Court Legal Services Committee and all the District Legal Services Authorities in the State of Orissa for compliance. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.- I agree. Order accordingly. --- *** --- .