JUDGMENT : The challenge in this Original Petition is to the order dated 26.4.2023 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-1, Ernakulam in O.A.No.487/2019, declining the prayer for refund of eligible court fee. 2. The respondent Bank instituted the above Original Application against the petitioner to recover the amount due to the Bank. The petitioner filed a counter claim as provided in Section 19(8) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (for short 'the Act'). The parties settled the dispute prior to the commencement of hearing and filed Ext.P3 joint application. In the joint application, the petitioner and respondent prayed for a refund of the eligible court fee under Section 19(3-B) of the Act. The Tribunal rejected the relief, prayed for by the petitioner on the ground that he was not an ‘applicant’ as defined in the Act and the Debts Recovery Tribunals (Refund of Court Fee) Rules, 2013 (for short ‘the DRT (Refund of Court Fee) Rules). 3. Section 19(3-B) of the Act contains the provision for refund of Court fees. Rule 4 of the DRT (Refund of Court Fee) Rules prescribes the percentage of the fee that the Tribunal can refund. 4. Section 19(3-B) of the Act reads thus: “19(3-B)- If any application filed before the Tribunal for recovery of any debt is settled prior to the commencement of the hearing before that Tribunal or at any stage of the proceedings before the final order is passed, the applicant may be granted refund of the fees paid by him at such rates as may be prescribed.” 5. Rule 4 of the 2013 Rules reads thus: “4. Amount of refund-The Presiding Officer of the Tribunal before which any case is filed for settlement of the dues of the Banks and Financial Institutions may order refund of fee remitted at the time of filing the case at the following rates: (a) 50 percent of the fee remitted in the cases which are settled prior to the commencement of the hearing before the Tribunal. (b) 25 percent of the fee remitted in the cases which are settled at any stage of the proceedings before the final order by the Presiding Officer is passed.” 6. The finding of the Tribunal is that the petitioner, who was the defendant, cannot be treated as an applicant as provided in Section 19(3-B) of the Act. The term ‘applicant’ is not defined in the Act. The finding of the Tribunal is that the petitioner, who was the defendant, cannot be treated as an applicant as provided in Section 19(3-B) of the Act. The term ‘applicant’ is not defined in the Act. The term ‘application’ is defined in the Act as an application made to the Tribunal under Section 19. In the present case, the petitioner, the defendant, had filed a counter claim as provided in Section 19(8) of the Act after remitting the required court fee and seeking relief. Such counter-claim shall have the same effect as a cross-application so as to enable the Tribunal to pronounce final order in the same proceedings, both on the original claim and on the counter-claim. Necessarily, the defendant/petitioner who preferred the counter-claim is to be treated as an 'applicant' within the meaning of Section 19(3-B) of the Act. So, the finding of the Tribunal that the defendant/petitioner is not an applicant is not sustainable. Therefore, the Tribunal is directed to consider the request of the petitioner under Section 19(3-B) of the Act in accordance with law. The parties are directed to appear before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Ernakulam on 13.10.2023.