RANJIT KAUR Vs. PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge in the present revision petition is to the order passed by the learned trial Court on 22.3.2004 holding that the plaintiffs are required to affix proper court fee on the amount of Rs. 20 lacs claimed by them.

(2.) THE plaintiff-petitioners have filed a suit for damages on account of the death of Jasvir Singh, husband of petitioner No. 1, father of petitioner No. 2 and son of petitioner No. 3, who died on 9.7.2003 due to electrocution. It has been pleaded that the deceased was working in the Punjab Police as Special Police Officer and was drawing Rs. 2500/- as monthly salary and was selected as full fledged Constable. The deceased was also earning more than Rs. 10,000/- per month from agriculture land. The plaintiffs also claimed a sum of Rs. 30,000/- on account of funeral expenses and Rs. 10,000/- on treatment and travelling. Another sum of Rs. 10,000/- was claimed on account of damages and repairs to the motorcycle and Rs. 30,000/- on account of injuries received by plaintiff No. 1. Another sum of Rs. 1 lac was claimed for pain and suffering, medical expenses and for loss of comfort etc. It was also pleaded that the deceased was to retire in the year 2021 and the life expectancy of the family of the deceased is more than 80 years and, thus, claimed a sum of Rs. 20,00,000/- as damages. The plaintiffs fixed the value of the suit for the purposes of court fees and jurisdiction at Rs. 500/- and paid a fee of Rs. 50/- thereon.

(3.) ON the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon the provisions of 7(i) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act") which contemplates that in a suit for money, including suits for damages or compensation or arrears of maintenance, of annuities, or of other sums payable periodically, the court fees payable is according to the amount claimed. It is contended that Section 7(iv)(f) of the Act i.e., in a suit for accounts, the court fee is payable in suits for accounts according to the amount at which the relief sought is valued. Still further, it is pointed out that fixed fee contemplated under Schedule II, Item No. 17(vi) of the Act is in the cases where it is not possible to estimate at a money value the subject-matter in dispute, and which is not otherwise provided for by this Act. It is, thus, sought to be argued that since the plaintiffs have claimed specific amount in the suit, it is not suit for accounts as contemplated under Section 7(iv)(f) or in terms of Schedule, Item No. 17(vi) of the Act and, therefore, ad valorem court fees is payable. It is further argued that the binding precedents of Hon'ble Supreme reported as Gopalakrishna Pillai and others v. Meenakshi Ayal and others, AIR 1967 Supreme Court 155, and that of Division Bench of this Court reported as M.S. Chemical Industries Limited etc v. The Hindustan Commercial Bank Limited, AIR 1956 Punjab 214, has not been taken into consideration in the judgments referred to by learned counsel for the petitioners and, therefore, the said judgments are per incurium and do not lay down binding precedence. Learned counsel also referred to a Division Bench judgment of predecessor Court reported as Qyamuddin v. Delhi Flour Mills Co Limited, AIR 1919 Lahore 363, D.S. Abraham and Company, AIR 1925 Rangoon 65, Bhagwant Sarup and others v. Himalaya Gas Co. and others, AIR 1985 Himachal Pradesh 41, M/s R and D Enterprises (Exports) and another v. Air France and another, AIR 1998 Delhi 193, Devi Chand v. Har Kishan Das, Indian Law Reports 1954(2) Allahabad 531, M/s Durga Pharma Distributors, Hyderabad and another v. Geoffrey Manners and Co. Ltd., and others, AIR 2000 Andhra Pradesh 242and Naranjan Singh v. Kartar Singh and others, 2002(2) Recent Civil Reports 405 to contend that it is settled view of the Courts that in a suit for damages ad valorem court fees is payable. It is also pointed out that in Special Leave Petition against the order passed by this Court in Jagdip Singh Chowhan's case (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court has stayed further proceedings in the civil suit vide order dated 10.12.2004.