NITIN JAIN Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition as Pro Bono Publico has been filed by Advocates against imposition of 10% Court fees on the Miscellaneous Appeals preferred for enhancement of the award under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

(2.) It was contended by the Counsel for the petitioners that the imposition of 10% Court fees after the amendment in Schedule II, Article 11(a)(i) of the Court Fees Act (M.P. Amendment) Act, 2012 w.e.f. 9.1.2013 was contrary to the amendment and the Claimants are required to pay only 2.5% Court fees on the enhanced amount claimed in appeal subject to a maximum of 1 lac rupees. However, the amendment was to be effective w.e.f. 9.1.13 but the claimants are still being asked to be paid 10% court fees on the enhanced amount in all the appeals. Counsel submitted that the earlier State Government had tried to curb litigation by imposition of 10% Court fees and the matter of payment of the court fees has followed chequered proceedings. Fixed Court fee on the amount of award was required to be paid by the Insurance Company and the owner; whereas, the claimant was required to pay advalorem Court fees on the enhanced amount and the standard rate was 10%.

(3.) However, in order to rationalize the Court fees leviable on the plaint, written statement, pleading a set -off or counter -claim, or memorandum of appeal presented to any Civil or revenue Court, it was further decided to amend Article 1 -A of Schedule 1 to the Court Fees Act, 1870 in its application to the State of M.P. And Section 3 of the Amendment Act provided for such an amendment by the Court Fees (Madhya Pradesh Amendment Act No.6 of 2008). It was decided to provide for levy of court fees on memorandum of appeal when presented to the High Court by the Claimant for enhancement of award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal by suitable amendment of "Article 11 of Schedule II to the Principal Act in its application to the State of Madhya Pradesh. By this amendment the legislation sought to remove the mischief caused to the litigating public because of ad valorem Court Fees without any upper limit therefor. And although by the amendment, the Court fees amount was enhanced precipitously. An upper limit was provided in payment of Court fees and instead of ad valorem Court fees a just and proper approach was needed and whereas by the Amendment Act of 2008 the following amendment was made in Section 3.