The Madras High Court has ruled that exemption from payment of Court Fees in MACT Cases can be sought only before Tribunal and not on Appeals.
The single-judge bench of Justice P.T Asha observed that such exemption was at the discretion of the Judicial Officer and is available only before the Claims Tribunal.
In the catena of petitions, the legal questions that posed before the Court were:
(1)Whether the provisions of Rule 24 would apply to Appeals under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act without giving proof of the indigent circumstances.
(2)Whether the petitioners/claimants who have obtained exemption can withdraw the amounts deposited without paying the Court Fees.
The Court at the outset noted that the fee that is imposed on a litigant to contest a case in the Court of law is the Court fee. The object of the enactment was to dissuade unnecessary litigation by levying huge Court fees.
This system of levy had undergone various changes and ultimately it took the form of the Court Fees Act, 1867 which also forms the basis for the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1955. The imposition of Court fees, is to some extent necessary to meet the expenses for the administration of Justice by spending on the administrative work of the Courts.
It mentioned wherein the Supreme Court held that it is for the State to establish what has to be levied as Court Fees and whether such levy is proper. In case of an enhancement in the Court fees, it is for the State to justify enhancement. In view of this, the Court construded that the levy of Court Fee is to off set the cost of administration of Civil Justice and the reason behind this concept is that exercise of Justice is enshrined in Article 39- A of the Constitution of India.
Noting that the right to access to Courts, the right to legal aid and engaging a counsel was introduced by the Constitution in its 42nd amendment in the form of Article 39-A, which provides equal justice and free legal aid to all.
The Top Court in P.M.Ashwathamarayana Setty and others Vs. State of Karnataka – 1989 (1) SCC 696 (Supp.P) has observed that all civilized Government should recognise the need for the access of the Justice being free and this sentiment has formed the basis for providing the exemption from the payment of Court fees in special cases.
Rule 1 talks about the fee that is payable in the case of the claim petition before the Tribunal and Rule 1 A talks about the Court fee that is payable in the Case of an appeal, the Court said. It added that the provisions of Rule 24 (3) deals with the exemption of Court fees before the Claims Tribunal and this provision does not refer to Rule 24 (1) A
"The counsels have been filing petitions for exemption of Court fees before this Court in the appeals filed under Section 173 and orders have been passed in a mechanical manner. They have been invoking the provisions of Rule 24 (3) in respect of the appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act", the Court remarked.
Even in the 1961 Rules, under Rule 20 (2) the discretion to exempt a party from payment of Court fees only related to payment of Court fees prescribed in Sub rule (1), namely, fee payable before the Tribunal. The same provision was not available for appeals. This situation continues even in the 1989 Rules which remains in force to date, the Court ruled.
Noting that the exemptions sought for before the Claims Tribunal does not contemplate a roving enquiry as contemplated under Order XXXIII of the CPC and it is for the Tribunal to use its discretion to exempt the person from payment of the Court fee, the Court went on to examine what "discretion" is?
It cited SC ruling in Som Raj & Ors Vs. State of Haryana & Ors, 1990 Latest Caselaw 57 SC, wherein the Supreme Court while discussing the discretionary power has observed:
"Discretion means sound discretion guided by law or governed by known principles of rules, not by whim or fancy or caprice of the authority.”
The Bench had observed that discretion should be governed by principles of Rules and not by whims and fancies of the Judicial Officer. The claimant who approaches the Court comes to the Court stating that by reason of the accident they have suffered loss of income and the claim petitions normally state the occupation as well as the income that the injured / deceased had earned prior to the accident.
"Therefore, in all these cases, the claimants do not project themselves as persons living in indigent circumstances. In such circumstances, the discretion has to be used judiciously and not for the asking. Coming to the case of exemptions in appeals filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, Rule 24 (3) does not contemplate exemption in appeals and exemptions are only contemplated for claim petition before the Tribunal. This does not preclude a litigant from seeking exemption in the case of an appeal under Section 173. However the exemption has to be sought for and granted in the manner contemplated under Order XLIV read with Order XXXIII of the CPC."
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com:
Share this Document :Picture Source :
