LEELAMMA BABUKUTTY Vs. JOSEPH SAMUEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEFORE us appearing earlier as a revision petition the same matter is now before us as a petition under Art 227 of the Constitution of india Though in a revision the order would not be challenged it may be a proper matter for consideration in a petition under Art 227 of the Constitution of india.

(2.) IT is the propriety of an order passed by the District judge of Quilon acting as Claims Tribunal under the Motor Vehicles Act that has come up for consideration in this petition. The Motor Vehicles Act has conceived a new scheme in Ss 110 and 110a to 110d by way of adjudication by claims Tribunal in place of Civil Courts. Evidently this has the object of expeditious disposal of claims for compensation in respect of accidents involving death or of bodily injury to persons. The scheme indicates that it is not intended merely as a speedy remedy but a more expeditious remedy because of the provisions relating to payment of Court Fee. The Claims Tribunal Rules have been made in 1977 in the State of Kerala . R. 23 of the said Rules provides for payment of court fee in an application under S. 110a of the Act. The fee prescribed is considerably lower than the fee that might have to be paid by a claimant in a civil suit for compensation for such injury or for death. Even so the fee prescribed by R. 23 is not inconsequential The provision of sub-rule (2) of R. 23 enables the Claims tribunal in its discretion to exempt the party from payment of fee prescribed under sub rule (1) of R. 23 That is a very salutary provision, for, despite the reduced scale of court fee under R. 23 (1) there may be several instances where an aggrieved party may not be able to seek effective relief for want of means to pay even the fee at the reduced scale. To take for instance the case before us as a claim for compensation of Rs. 14,85,000 the fee payable under R. 23 (1)would be Rs. 14. 222. 50.

(3.) WE have to remember that the State did not even file a counter to the request for exemption. None was examined on behalf of the State to counter the case of the claimants that they have no assets. The wife of the deceased was examined as pw. 1. She categorically spoke to the fact that they have not inherited any property, movable or immovable. There has" been no effective cross-examination on this point and nothing has been brought out to discredit pw. 1. She could do nothing more than to swear that there are no assets left behind by her husband. If these be the circumstances how a court could assume that the deceased man who was earning Rs. 3,000 per month must have had savings and must have left behind a valuable estate is not evident from the order. This is the reason why we characterised the order of the learned Tribunal as irrational. WE set aside the order and direct the Claims tribunal to examine the question properly and in the light of what we have stated here. In doing so we believe that a more objective approach would be made.