SUMITRADEVI MAHIPAL KUREEL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision application under Rule 4 (v) of chapter V of Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960 challenges the order of Taxing Officer of High Court Bench at Nagpur dated 22-8-2003 in First appeal Stamp No. 14634/2003 holding that the appellant has to pay court fee on memo of appeal filed by her under section 23 of Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987. The Taxing Officer has relied upon judgment of this court between M/s betle Stores vs. State of Maharashtra reported at 7997 Mh. LJ. 823 and has found that the court fee is payable either under Art. 3 of Bombay Court Fees Act treating the decision of Railway Claims Tribunal to be an award or under Article 1 of Bombay Court Fees Act, which prescribes ad-valorem court fees depending upon the valuation of the suit. He has recorded that in either case there is no difference in amount of court fee required to be paid on such memo of appeal.

(2.) The appellant is First Appeal Stamp No. 14634/2003 and applicant in this civil revision application Shrimati Sumitradevi was travelling by Kushinagar express from Kalyan to Kanpur Central on 7-1-2002 when she met with accident at about 7 A. M. in which she lost both legs. Her case it is she entered reserved compartment with permission of one train ticket examiner and at Bhuswal another tte in plain clothes objected and pushed her out of said compartment from moving train because of which her both legs came under the wheels of train and had to be amputated. She filed police complaint in this respect and also on 14-11- 2002 filed her claim with Railway Claims Tribunal at Nagpur. She forwarded this application by registered post acknowledgment due but did not receive any acknowledgment back. As the limitation was to expire she forwarded another claim application by R. P. A. D. and learned Railway Claims Tribunal at Nagpur dismissed both these applications with cost of Rs. 5000/- only on the sole ground that she preferred two applications for same cause of action. Aggrieved by this, she filed abovementioned First Appeal before this court and objection was raised by the office of High Court about court fee. The matter was placed before Additional registrar (Judicial) and applicant filed a pursis pointing out that she is exempted from paying court fee at appellate stage as court fee was not require to be paid before Railway Claims Tribunal. The matter was referred to Taxing Officer of high Court here and the said officer upheld the office objection on 22-8-2003. The civil revision is directed against this order of Taxing Officer.

(3.) I have heard Advocate Harsulkar for Revision applicant, Advocate kaptan for respondent No. 1 State Government and Advocate P. S. Lambat for respondent No. 2 Union of India.