ASHOK KUMAR Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition, the petitioner who claims himself to be a social worker and a businessman, impugns the validity of provisions of the Court Fee (M.P. Amendment) Act, 2008 in so far as it substitutes Article 11 (a) (i) in the Second Schedule appended to the Court Fees Act, 1870. This case has been heard along with a bunch of other cases involving the same issue. Thus, this decision will govern all these cases. The other cases referred above are Writ Petitions No. 1796 of 2007, 3437 of 2007, 3804 of 2007, 3872 of 2007, 8611 of 2008 and 14738 of 2008.

(2.) UNDER Article 11 (a) (i) of the Court Fees Act,as amended by M.P. Act No. 6 of 2008, in an appeal filed against an award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (for short 'MACT'), the claimant is required to pay ad valorem Court Fee at the prescribed rate, which at present is 10%, on the difference between the amount of compensation awarded by MACT and the amount claimed in the appeal. The aforesaid amendment has come into force w.e.f. 2-4-2008. The relevant extract of the Court Fee (M.P. Amendment) Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 2008') reads as under :-

(3.) ON the other hand, learned Advocate General for the respondents submitted that Court-fee as per the amended provision will have to be paid only when the claimant' wants to file an appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation already awarded by the MACT. Care has been taken to provide that where the claim for compensation is dismissed by the MACT, the claimant can file an appeal on the fixed nominal Court-fee. It is further submitted that large numbers of frivolous appeals claiming enhancement of compensation are being filed every year due to which prompt disposal of other bonafide appeals is being delayed/ hampered. The concept of quid pro quo differentiating fee from tax has been mellowed down almost to the point of oblivion by the Supreme Court. And, in any case even that concept has not to be seen with regard to individual litigant or individual case, but there should be only a broad co-relation between the totality of fee and totality of expenses on the services rendered. In this connection, learned Counsel for the respondents has invited our attention to Paragraph 18 of the return filed on behalf of the respondents. It is also submitted that if a claimant is unable to pay the Court-fee on account of financial constrains, he can always file an appeal as an indigent person under Order 44 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is also submitted that issue relating to fixation of upper limit of the Court fee is academic and does not arise in the facts and circumstances of the case and the decision in the case of Adhunik Grih Nirman Sahakari Samiti Ltd. (supra), is distinguishable learned Advocate General in support of his submissions has placed reliance on decisions of Supreme Court in All India Judges' Association and others Vs. Union of India and others, 2002 SCC (L & S) 508, All India Judges' Association and others Vs. Union of India and others, (2006) 12 SCC 178, All India Judges' Association and others Vs. Union of India and others, (2006) 12 SCC 183, All India Judges' Association and others Vs. Union of India and others, (2006) 12 SCC 187, Secretary to Government of Madras and another Vs. P.R. Sriramulu and another, (1996) 1 SCC 345, and Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Manohar Wadhwani Vs. Bank of Baroda, ILR [2011] MP 1932 = 2011(3) M.P.H.T. 414.