Mukesh Sahu vs Dheeru Lal
2021 Latest Caselaw 3058 MP

1 MA-1212-2021 The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh MA-1212-2021 (MUKESH SAHU Vs DHEERU LAL AND OTHERS)

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

Shri Sanjay Kumar Saini, learned counsel for the appellant. Heard on I.A.No.4075/2021, which is an application for dispense with payment of court fees on memo of appeal in view of amendment dated 9.1.2013.

Brief facts of the case which are relevant for disposal of aforesaid application are that the appellants filed this Miscellaneous Appeal against the award dated 12/3/2021 passed by MACT, Mandla in Claim Case No.83/2018 for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal to the applicant. This Miscellaneous Appeal is for enhancement of a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-. Office put the objection that appeal is not maintainable without payment of Court fees on that enhanced amount i.e. Rs.5,00,000/-. Present application has been filed for overruling that objection.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted 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 appellant 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 appellant 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. Signature Not Verified SAN In this regard, learned counsel also placed reliance on this Court'™s

Digitally signed by MONIKA CHOURASIA Date: 2021.07.07 17:25:30 IST 2 MA-1212-2021 judgments passed in Bhola Prasad vs. Rakesh @ Bhura Rai and others, passed in Misc. Appeal No.254/2010 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 MA.No.852/2015 vide order dated 21/12/2016, Smt. Sushma Dhurve & Others Vs. Dayal Singh &

Others passed in MA.No.5539/2019 vide order dated 19/12/2019, Suresh Maravi Vs. Akash Singh Rajput & Others passed in MA.No.1996/2020 vide order dated 10/09/2020 and Ravi Shankar Vs. Arjun Lal & Others passed in M.A.No.2187/2020 vide order dated 23/09/2020.

This Court has gone through the record and arguments advanced by the counsel of the appellant. This appeal has been filed by the appellants u/s 173 Motor Vehicle Act. 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 Â"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 appellants in their appeal memo and not on the amount which will be determined by the Court after adjudication of the claim of the appellants 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 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 plaintiff to pay the deficit Court fees at a subsequent stage. But this Section Signature Not Verified SAN also does not give unfettered power to Court for giving time to applicant for Digitally signed by MONIKA CHOURASIA Date: 2021.07.07 17:25:30 IST 3 MA-1212-2021 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) "Âœwhere 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) and Ravi Shankar Vs. Arjun Lal & Others (M.A.No.2187/2020) this Court gave the permission to the appellant 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 appellant is 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 vide order dated 06.11.2012, Ramcharan vs. Rameshwar

Signature Not Verified Prasad Mishra and others passed in Misc Appeal No.1843/2011 SAN

Digitally signed by MONIKA CHOURASIA Date: 2021.07.07 17:25:30 IST 4 MA-1212-2021 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 appellant do not much help to the appellant. In the aforementioned cases, this Court did not lay down any principle that appellant is 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 v s State O f Madhya Pradesh And Ors . 2 0 0 6 (4) MPHT 2 3 7 turning d o wn t h e prayer o f appellant that appellant ma y be allowed t o make payment of Court fee at the time of final decision of the appeal o n compensation which may be determined by the court and held - C o urt f e e s i s payable o n valuation o f appeal. T h e amo unt f o r 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. J a na kc ha nd R a n a v i d e o r d e r d a t e d 06.09.2017 p a s s e d i n 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 and Anr. reported in AIR 2006 S C 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 witho ut p ayment o f C o u r t f e e s o n t h e c laimed enhanc ed amount i.e.Rs.5,00,000/-. If the claimant is unable to pay the Court fee on account of Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by MONIKA CHOURASIA Date: 2021.07.07 17:25:30 IST 5 MA-1212-2021 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.4075/2021 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

m/-

Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by MONIKA CHOURASIA Date: 2021.07.07 17:25:30 IST