R.A. Mehta, J.
1. This group of Revision Applffications by the State is directed against the order regarding court fees payable by an indigent person in a motor accident case. All these Revision Applications involve a common question and they are directed against a common judgment.
2. The question is what is the amount of court fees payable by an indigent person when he partly succeeds in a motor accident claim case. Is the court fee payable one-half of the ad valorem court fees payable on the amount claimed? Or is the court fee payable only on the amount awarded, when the former one is higher than the latter?
3. In each of these cases the amount claimend was between 20 and 50 thousand and the amount awarded is between Rs. 2700/- to Rs. 11950/-. Each of the indigent claimants has now paid full court fees on the awarded amount. However, that amount is less than the amount of one-half of the court fees payable on the original claim. Therefore according to the Inspecting Officer of Court Fees there was a deficit of court fees of Rs. 135/- to Rs. 631.25 ps. in different cases. A tabular statement of the eight case is as follows:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sr. Appln. One half Amount Amount Full Court- Deficit No. No. Court-fees claimed awarded fees stamp on leviable awarded
amount
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 67/80 725.00 20000/- 4200/- 300/- 425/- 2 68/80 860.00 26000/- 9200/- 725/- 135/- 3 69/80 882.50 27000/- 4360/- 312.50 570/- 4 70/80 725.00 20000/- 7600/- 570/- 155/- 5 71/80 837.50 25000/- 4375/- 525/- 312.50 6 72/80 1250/- 50000/- 11000/- 820/- 430/- 7 93/80 837.50 25000/- 2700/- 206.25 631.25 8 94/80 1100/- 38860/- 11950/- 890/- 210/- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Out of the above eight cases, two CRAs being CRA No. 849/81 and CRA No. 854/81 have been decided by A.P. Ravani, J. on 13th September 1985 without going into the merits of the question and rule in those two Revision Applications have been discharged, because the opponents could not be served and the cost of the public notice would be disproportionate to the questions involved. They were not decided on merits. The remaining Revision Applications are required to be heard and disposed of on merits.
4. Rule 292 of Bombay Motor Vehicles Rules provides for payment of court fees. Sub-rule (2) provides that where the claim is for an amount not exceeding Rs. 9999/- the court fees are fixed at Rs. 10/- only, and Sub-rule (2) provides for the payment of one-half of the ad valorem fee leviable on the amount at which the claim is valued in the application. Then follows the proviso which is important and which reads as follows:
Provided that if the person making the application succeeds, he shall be liable to make good the deficit, if any, between the full fee payable on the amount at which the claim is awarded by the Tribunal and the fee already pay by him.
5. The learned Counsel for the State has submitted that the liability of the indigent person to pay court fees is governed by Order 33 Rules 10, 11 and 10A, CPC and accordingly an indigent person is liable to pay the court fees which would have been paid by the plaintiff, had he not been permitted to sue as an indigent person and thus his liability to pay the court fees is only deferred till the result of the claim petition.
6. On behalf of the opponents in CRA No. 853/81 it is submitted that the liability is to pay the deficit court fees, if any, and nothing more and, therefore, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal was right in rejecting the claim of the revenue.
7. In order to test the validity of the rival claims, let us take illustration of three different situations:
(A) A claimant making a claim of Rs. 50,000/- and paying one-half ad valorem court fees and succeeding partly to the extent of Rs. 11,000/-;
(B) A similar claimant of Rs. 50,000/- and getting an award for Rs. 11,000/- but, having sued as indigent person, has not paid one-half ad valorem court fees as paid in Illustration (a) above and
(C) An indigent person having made a claim of Rs. 50,000/- without payment of court fees and totally failing in that claim.
8. In Illustration (A) the claimant has already paid one-half of ad valorem court fees on the claim of Rs. 50,000/- and he has succeeded only to the extent of Rs. 11,000/-. He is liable to pay full court fee on Rs. 11,000/- which is less than one-half of ad valorem court fees on Rs. 50,000/-. Therefore, there is no deficit and no question of court fees recoverable arises in that case but he is not entitled to any refund of court fees.
9. In Illustration (B), the claimant is an indigent person, otherwise he is in the same situation as in Illustration (A). Would he be in any manner in a better position than the claimant in Illustration (A)? Even though the claimant in Illustration (A) does not get any refund of court fees, this claimant wants to pay less and have the benefit of refund, which is not provided by law.
10. Illustration (C) would make the position still clearer. The indigent person having totally failed in the claim, is bound to pay the full ad valorem court fees on the amount claimed and not only one-half of the ad valorem court fees.
11. Thus there does not appear to be any reason to hold that an indigent person is liable to pay court fees only on the amount awarded and he is not required to pay the deficit or difference in court fees between the court fee on the amount awarded and the court fee on the amount claimed. If the interpretation canvassed by the claimant is accepted, it would result into anomaly and different interpretation of the same provision for different persons. The liability to pay one half of the court fees is uniform and applicable to all. In respect of indigent persons the only exception made is that the payment of court fees is deferred till disposal of the claim petition and there is no exemption from payment of the one-half of the court fees on the amount claimed. It is not possible to hold that an indigent person is liable to make good only the deficit between the full fee payable on the amount awarded and the nil fee at which he is permitted to institute the petition subject to deferred payment. The Tribunal was, therefore, not right in holding that under Rule 292 the question of recovery of deficit court fees arises only at the time of the award when the claimant partly succeeds and only to the extent of the claim awarded.
12. In the result the Revision Applications succeed and the judgment and order of the Tribunal is quashed and reversed and it is directed that the claimant in each of the six claim petitions is liable to make good the deficit court fees as claimed by the Inspecting Officer of the Court Fees as mentioned in column 7 in the table above.
13. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs.
