Kangu Lal Maravi vs Returaj Patil
2021 Latest Caselaw 2884 MP

                                                                    1                                MA-1281-2021
                                         The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                                                    MA-1281-2021

(KANGU LAL MARAVI Vs RETURAJ PATIL AND OTHERS)

Jabalpur, Dated : 01-07-2021 Heard through Video Conferencing.

None for the appellant.

In the absence of learned counsel for appellant the IA No.4046/2021 is considered, on the basis of averments made in the application.

Brief facts of the case which are relevant for disposal of aforesaid

application are that the appellant filed this Miscellaneous Appeal against the award dated 08.02.2021 passed by First A.M.A.C.T., Mandla in Claim Case No.362/2018 for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal to the applicants. This Miscellaneous Appeal is for enhancement of a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-. Office put the objection that appeal is not maintainable without payment of Court fees on that enhanced amount i.e. Rs.2,00,000/-. Present application has been filed for overruling that objection.

In the IA No.4046/2021 it is mentioned that according to Article 11 of Schedule II of the Court Fees Act 2.5% Court fees should be paid on the

enhanced amount. The amount claimed by the appellant in the appeal cannot be called as enhanced amount, but the enhanced amount will be such as would be given by the Court after adjudication of the claim of the appellant. Registry wrongly demanded 2.5% Court fees on the amount which is claimed by the appellants in the memo of appeal. There is no certainty as to what amount will be awarded by the Court. Appellant is only required to pay Court fee on the amount which will be determined as enhanced amount by this Court at the time of judgement of this appeal. So appellants may be allowed to make payment of Court fee at the time of final decision of the appeal on enhanced compensation, which may be determined by the Court. In this regard appellant also filed the copy of judgments passed in Bhola Prasad vs. Signature Not Verified SAN Rakesh @ Bhura Rai and others, passed in Misc. Appeal No.254/2010

Digitally signed by MANOJ NAIR Date: 2021.07.02 10:17:45 IST 2 MA-1281-2021 vide order dated 06.11.2012, Ramcharan vs. Rameshwar Prasad Mishra and others passed in Misc Appeal No.1843/2011 vide order dated 06.11.2012, Preetam Lal Garg vs. Vijay Kumar Gujrati passed in Misc Appeal No.852/2015 vide order dated 21/12/2016, Smt. Sushma Dhurve and others vs. Dayal Singh passed in Misc Appeal No.5539/2019 vide order dated 19.12.2019, Suresh Maravi vs. Akash Singh Rajput in Misc

Appeal No.1996/2020 vide order dated 10.09.2020 and Ravi Shankar v s. Arjun Lal and others passed in Misc. Appeal No.2187/2020 vide order dated 23.09.2020.

Appellant filed this Miscellaneous Appeal u/s 173 Motor Vehicle Act against the award dated 08.02.2021 passed by First A.M.A.C.T., Mandla in C laim Case/M.A.C.C. No.362/2018 for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal to the appellant. This Miscellaneous Appeal is for enhancement of a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-. The memo of appeal preferred u/s 173 Motor Vehicle Act is required to be affixed with Court Fees as per Article 11 of Schedule II of Court fees Act, which reads as thus:-

"(a) when presented to the High Court-

(i) By the claimant for enhancement of 2.5 percent of the amount of award passed by the Motor enhanced amount Accident Claims Tribunal. Claimed in appeal From the wordings of the provisions of Article 11 of Schedule II of Court fees Act" "2.5 percent of the enhanced amount claimed in appeal" it is clear that court fees will be paid on that enhanced amount which is claimed by the appellant in their appeal memo and not on the amount which will be determined by the Court after adjudication of the claim of the appellant and the court fees is payable at the time of presentation of the appeal not after judgement.

Section 4 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 bars the Court from receiving a plaint/appeal if it does not bear the proper court fees. Although Section 149 CPC acts as an exception to the said bar and enables the Court to permit the Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by MANOJ NAIR Date: 2021.07.02 10:17:45 IST 3 MA-1281-2021 plaintiff to pay the deficit Court fees at a subsequent stage. But this Section also does not give unfettered power to Court for giving time to applicant for paying Court fee.

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of A. Nawab John & Ors vs. V. N. Subramaniyam, (2012) 7 SCC 738 in pera 23 of its judgement observed as thus:-

"the Section 149 CPC does not confer an absolute right in favour of a plaintiff to pay the court fee as and when it pleases the plaintiff. It only enables a plaintiff to seek the indulgence of the Court to permit the payment of court fee at a point of time later than the presentation of the plaint. The exercise of the discretion

by the Court is conditional upon the satisfaction of the Court that the plaintiff offered a legally acceptable explanation for not paying the court fee within the period of limitation."

Order 7 rule 11 of CPC also provides that the plaint shall be rejected

(c) "where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is written upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so."

Although, this Court in the case of Preetam Lal Garg Vs. Vijay Kumar Gujrati, (MA.No.852/2015), Ravi Shankar Vs. Arjun Lal & Others (M.A.No.2187/2020) gave the permission to the appellants of these cases that they will be permitted to pay court fees on the enhanced amount after judgement in the appeal. But in these cases also this court did not lay down any principle that appellants are required to pay court fee only on the amount enhanced by the court in the appeal and that the court fee will be paid after adjudication of the appeal by the court. The orders are limited for these cases only.

The Judgements of this court passed in the case of Bhola Prasad vs. Rakesh @ Bhura Rai and others, passed in Misc. Appeal No.254/2010 Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by MANOJ NAIR Date: 2021.07.02 10:17:45 IST 4 MA-1281-2021 vide order dated 06.11.2012, Ramcharan vs. Rameshwar Prasad Mishra and others passed in Misc Appeal No.1843/2011 vide order dated 06.11.2012, Smt. Sushma Dhurve & Others Vs. Dayal Singh & Others (MA.No.5539/2019), Suresh Maravi Vs. Akash Singh Rajput & Others (MA.No.1996/2020) (supra) relied by the learned counsel of the applicants do not much help to the appellants. In the aforementioned cases this Court did not lay down any principle that appellants are required to pay court fee only on that amount which enhanced by the court after adjudication of appeal and court fee will be paid after adjudication of the appeal by this court. The orders are limited for these cases only.

On the other hand the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dr. Hajarilal Agrawal vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Ors. 2006 (4) MPHT 237 turning down the prayer of appellant that appellant may be allowed to make payment of Court fee at the time of final decision of the appeal on compensation which may be determined by the court and held - Court fees is payable on valuation of appeal. The amount for which adjudication is sought not on determined , on the initial stage where Court-fee is required to be paid. This Court also in the case of Ramratan Singh vs. Janakchand Rana vide order dated 06.09.2017 passed in M.A. No.781/2015 held that appeal is not maintainable without payment of Court Fees on the claimed amount.

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of K.C. Skaria Vs. Govt. of State of Kerala & Anr. reported in AIR 2006 SC 811 held that non-payment of Court fees cannot be claimed as a matter of convenience or on the ground of hardship or on the ground that person suing did not know the exact amount due to him as that will open the floodgates for converting several types of money claims into suits for accounts to avoid payment of court fees at the time of institution.

From the above discussion it is clear that the appeal is not maintainable without payment of Court fees on the claimed enhanced amount i.e. Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by MANOJ NAIR Date: 2021.07.02 10:17:45 IST 5 MA-1281-2021 Rs.2,00,000/-. If the claimant is unable to pay the Court fee on account of indigency, he can always seek the leave to file an appeal as an indigent person under Order 44 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Hence, I.A.No.4046/2021 is hereby rejected sans merit and appellant is directed to pay requisite Court fees within fifteen days, failing which this appeal shall stand rejected without reference to the Court.

On payment of requisite court fees by the appellant within fifteen days matter be listed for admission in due course.

(RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY) JUDGE

mn

Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by MANOJ NAIR Date: 2021.07.02 10:17:45 IST