D M KAUSHIK Vs. GRADUATE GAS SERVICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE controversy is centred on the true scope and ambit of S. 17 of the Court--fees Act, 1870 (hereinafter called the Act ). The said provision is reproduced below:

(2.) D . M. Kaushik, petitioner and his wife, respondent No. 6, Shrimati Samyukta Kaushik, his mother (now deceased) and Shrimati Ram Piari, respondent No. 7, his aunt, were living in his house at Amritsar. On May 6, 1972, respondent No. 1 supplied them a gas cylinder was defective and was leaking before the same was installed by Ajit Ram. As a result of mishandling by Ajit Ram, gas from the same got leaked and caught fire and set the whole room ablaze. As a consequence, the petitioner, his wife, mother and the aunt suffered serious burns and the mother Samyukta Kaushik died in the hospital as a result of those burns. The suit for damages out of which this revision petition has arisen, was filed for a total sum of Rs. 55,200/ -. The petitioner himself claimed Rs. 22,000.00, his wife respondent No. 6, claimed Rs. 10,700.00and his aunt Ram Piari, respondent No. 7, claimed Rs. 12,000/ -. Two sons and four daughters of Samyukta Kaushik, the mother of the petitioner, claimed Rs. 10,500.00on account of expenses incurred for the deceased and mental injury and torture suffered by her. The suit was filed against the gas distributor, defendant No. 1, defendants Nos. 2 to 4 as partners and defendant No. 5 as the gas manufacturer. The defendants-respondents in their written statements raised a number of preliminary objections. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:

(3.) IN Nauratan Lal v. Wilford Joseph Stephenson, AIR 1922 Pat 359, a suit for the recovery of possession of land, for malikana as well as for mesne profits was filed. The plaintiff computed the Court fee on the total amount of the three items. The trial Court held that three items. The trial Court held that S. 17 was applicable and Court fee should be paid on three items separately. The Division Bench of the Patna High Court in the said case after considering all the previous decisions held that the word "subjects" in S. 17 meant "cause of action" and that the Court fee as paid by the plaintiff had been correctly assessed.