The court fee payable on a memorandum of appeal against an order of the Railway Claims Tribunal under section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, is governed by the provisions of Article 3 of Schedule I of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959.

Headnote:
COURT FEES - RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ACT, 1987 - SECTION 23 - BOMBAY COURT FEES ACT, 1959 - ARTICLE 1 AND 3 OF SCHEDULE I - COURT FEE PAYABLE ON MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL - INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION.
Fact of the Case:

The applicant filed an appeal under section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, against the decision of the Railway Claims Tribunal, paying a court fee of Rs. 49/- as per the provisions of Rule 6 of the Railway Claims Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1989, read with Schedule II of the Rules. The office of the High Court raised objections, contending that the court fee paid was insufficient and directed the applicant to pay the deficit court fee of Rs. 15/-. The applicant challenged this decision in a revision application.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the court fee paid by the applicant was inadequate and that he was required to pay the deficit court fee of Rs. 15/-. The court found that the provisions of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, or the Rules made thereunder, did not provide for the amount of court fee to be paid on the memorandum of appeal, and that the provisions of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959, alone governed the payment of court fees on the memorandum of appeals to be presented before the High Court under section 23 of the Act. The court further found that the order of the Tribunal under section 16(1) of the Act would be an award within the meaning of the term Award in Article 3 of Schedule I of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959, and that the court fee payable on the memorandum of appeal under section 23 of the Act would, therefore, be governed by the provisions of Article 3 of Schedule I of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959.
Issues: 1. Whether the court fee paid by the applicant on the memorandum of appeal was adequate? 2. Whether the provisions of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959, governed the payment of court fees on the memorandum of appeals to be presented before the High Court under section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted the provisions of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, and the Rules made thereunder, and found that they did not provide for the amount of court fee to be paid on the memorandum of appeal. 2. The court interpreted the provisions of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959, and found that they governed the payment of court fees on the memorandum of appeals to be presented before the High Court under section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987. 3. The court interpreted Article 3 of Schedule I of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959, and found that the court fee payable on the memorandum of appeal under section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, would be governed by the provisions of Article 3 of Schedule I of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision application and upheld the decision of the Taxing Officer of the High Court, directing the applicant to pay the deficit court fee of Rs. 15/- on the memorandum of appeal filed under section 23(1) of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987.

JUDGMENT - PATIL G.D., J.:---Rule made returnable forthwith. Head learned Counsel for the respective parties.

2. This is the revision under Rule 4(v) of Chapter V of the Bombay High Court Rules, 1960, read with section 115, Civil Procedure Code against the decision dated 26-3-1991 of the Taxing Officer of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur (for short referred to as "the High Court") in first Appeal Stamp No. 25947 of 1990, holding that the Court fee paid by the applicant-appellant is inadequate and directing him to pay the deficit Court fee of Rs. 15/- on the Memo of Appeal filed under section 23(1) of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987. The applicant had filed the claim petition under section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, (for short "the Act"), seeking relief in respect of the matter referred to in sub-section (1) of section 13 of the Act. The Railway Claims Tribunal by its order dated 4-10-1990, rejected the petitioner's claim to the extent of Rs. 634.82. As against this rejection of the applicant's claim to the extent of Rs. 634.82 by the Railway Claims Tribunal, the applicant filed the appeal under section 23 of the Act, to this Court paying therein the Court fee of Rs. 49/- calculating the same as per the provisions of Rule 6 of the Railway Claims Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1989, read with Schedule II of the Rules.

3. The office of this Court raised objections as regards the Court fee paid. As per the decision of the Taxing Officer of this Court, the Court fee paid on the memo of the appeal was insufficient as the Court fee to be paid on the Memo of the appeal before this Court has to be calculated as per Article 1 of Schedule I of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959, and the total Court fee payable was Rs. 64. Accordingly the Court fee already paid was, therefore, short by Rs. 15/- as the claim in the appeal was to the extent of Rs. 634.80. The applicant has challenged this decision of the Taxing Officer in the present Civil Revision Application.

4. I have heard Shri Dubey learned Counsel for the applicant and Shri Parate learned Honorary Assistant Government Pleader for the non-applicant State. It is contended by Shri Dubey learned Counsel for the applicant that having regard to the provisions of the Act and Railway Claims Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1989 and further having regard to the provisions of Rule 2 of Chapter V of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules and the provisions of section 7 of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959, the Court fee paid by the applicant on the memorandum of the appeal was perfectly corrected and proper and contrary decision arrived at by the Taxing Officer was not justified. Shri Parate learned Counsel for the non-applicant the State tried to justify the order of the Taxing Officer.

5. As per section 13 of the Act, the claims Tribunal under the Act, is empowered to exercise jurisdiction, powers and authority as were exercisable immediately before the commencement of the Act, by any Civil Court or the Claims Commissioner under the provisions of the Act relating to (a) the responsibility of the railway administration as carries under Chapter VII of the Railways Act in respect of claims for (i) compensation for loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non delivery of animals or goods entrusted to a railway administration for carriage by railway (ii) compensation payable under section 82-A of the Railways Act or the Rules made thereunder; and (b) in respect of claims for refund any freight paid in respect of animals or goods entrusted to a railway administration to be carried by railway. Section 16 of the Act provides for making application to the Claims Tribunal for seeking any relief in respect of the matters referred to in sub-section (1) of section 13 and it further provides that every such application shall be accompanied by such fee in respect of the filing of the application and by such other fees for the service or execution of the process as m

Click Here to Read the rest of this document