SUMA Vs. RAJESH P A

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Jijoy Sebastian, husband of the first petitioner, - father of petitioners 2 and 3 and son of petitioners 4 and 5 died - in a motor accident on 14.5.2011. The petitioners thereupon filed - a claim petition in the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pala, claiming - the sum of Rs.40,00,000/- as compensation from the owner, the driver - and the insurer of an autorickshaw, the negligent driving of which - according to the petitioners resulted in the accident. On that claim - petition the sum of Rs.39,373/- was payable as court fee, computed - in terms of rule 397 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. In - the claim petition itself the petitioners had stated that they are - not in a position to pay the court fee at present and that they are - agreeable to have the court fee recovered from the compensation awarded - by the Tribunal. They also filed I.A.No.1174 of 2011 to exempt them - from payment of court fee, wherein also they had stated that they - do not have the means to pay the court fee. By Ext.P3 order passed - on 8.6.2011 the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal rejected the application - for exemption from payment of court fee. The order reads as follows:-

(2.) Aggrieved by Ext.P3, the petitioners filed Ext.P4 petition seeking - a review of the said order. By Ext.P5 order passed on 1.7.2011 the - review petition was dismissed holding that the petitioner has not - produced evidence or records to substantiate her contention that she - is a pauper. Hence this writ petition challenging Exts.P3 and P5 orders. - The main contention raised by the petitioners is that the Motor Accidents - Claims Tribunal erred in rejecting the application for exemption from - payment of court fee on the ground that the petitioners have not proved - that they are indigent persons. It is contended that an enquiry in - terms of Order XXXIII of the Code of Civil Procedure is not required - to be conducted when a claimant seeks exemption from payment of court - fee in view of the stipulations contained in the first proviso to - sub-rule (2) of rule 397 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules.

(3.) A learned single Judge of the Madras High Court considered a similar - question in T.Kanchana Devi v. R.D.Mani, 2004 ACJ 1844. Rule 24(3) - of the Tamil Nadu Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Rules, 1989, empowered - the Claims Tribunal in its discretion to exempt any party from payment - of the court fee prescribed under sub-rule (1) thereof. In the first - proviso to sub- rule (2) of rule 24 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles - Accidents Claims Tribunal Rules, 1989, it is stipulated that where - a claim of a party has been accepted by the Claims Tribunal, the party - shall have to pay the prescribed fees, exemption in respect of which - had been granted initially, before a copy of the judgment is obtained. - Interpreting the said provisions, a learned single Judge of the Madras - High Court held that an application seeking exemption from payment - of court fee is not similar to an application claiming dispensation - of court fee or an application for leave to sue as an indigent person. - It was held that there is no need to conduct a roving enquiry as provided - under the Code of Civil Procedure and that if the claimant satisfies - the Tribunal that he is not in a position to pay the required court - fee, it may, in its discretion, exempt him from payment of the court - fee. The learned Judge also took note of the fact that by virtue of - the proviso to sub-rule (2) of rule 24, in the event of the claimant - succeeding, he will not be entitled to get a copy of the judgment - unless the court fee payable is paid.