1997 Supreme(Bom) 571

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
(AURANGABAD BENCH)
B.B. Vagyani, J.
Smt. Parwatibai w/o Vijaydas Vaishnav others ..... Petitioners.
Versus
The State of Maharashtra others.... Respondents.
Civil Revision Application No. 232 of 1997, decided on 24-10-1997.
Advocates appeared :
R.K. Ashtekar, holding for D.B. Yeotikar, for petitioner.
A.M. Kanade, G.P., for respondent No. 1.
H.T. Joshi, for respondent No. 2.
S.G. Shinde, for respondent No. 3.
V.N. Upadhye, for respondent No. 4.

Headnote:Section 46-Notification No. STP 1094-CR-859/M-1, dated 1.10.1994 -Motor Vehicle Act, 1988-Motor Vehicle (Second Amendment) Rules, 1996-Range of application of notification issued by Government of Maharashtra granting exemption of court-fees for women litigants-Petitioner received injuries in road accident and succumbed to injuries-Petitioner filed motor accident claim under the Act-Accordingly application for exemption of court-fees preserved pursuant to notification dated 1.10.1994. Tribunal rejected the application on the ground that notification does not apply-Government introduced on 16th August, 1996 Second Amendment in Maharashtra Motor Vehicle Rules-By this amendment claim Tribunal can exempt an applicant for payment of fees under Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988-Court took the view of the Government Notification of 1st October, 1994 does not come to rescue, the claim Tribunal should have granted exemption under sub-rule (3) of Rule 257 Maharashtra (Second Amendment) Rules, 1996 and ought to have registered the claim-Under the circumstances matter remitted back to claim Tribunal with direction to give benefit of exemption to the petition.

       Section 46-Maharashtra Government, Notification dated 1.10.1994-Court fees-Exemption to woman litigants-Dispute regarding property-Held-Notification issued by Government applies to dispute pertaining to both movable and immovable property.

       Maharashtra Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989

       Rule 259(3) (As amended by second Amendment) Rules, 1996Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Sections 166(a) and (d)-Claim for compensation under Section 166-Court Fees-Exemption from-Woman Litigant-Poor widow-Held-Claim Tribunal ought to have registered the petition granting exemption from Court fees.-After death of the husband, the widow has filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for grant of compensation. If, bread winner of the family dies in the accident entire family is uprooted. The condition of widow with minor children becomes worst. The widow and children are ill-clad, ill- fed and ill-sheltered. With a great hope the widow and her minor children have approached the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in the mailer of grant of compensation. But, by a single stroke of pen, their petition has been declined to be registered on the ground that notification, dated 1st October, 1994 issued by the Government of Maharashtra does not apply to the claims arising out of the accident. The Ex-officio Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is not expected to fold hands and keep quiet. It is the duty of the Ex-officio Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to be activist enough to extend the benefits of sub-clause 3 of Rule 257 of the Maharashtra Motor Vehicles (Second Amendment) Rules, 1996 which is as under:

       "The Claims Tribunal may exempt an applicant from payment of the fee payable under sub-rule (1). However, if, claim of such applicant has been accepted by the Claims Tribunal, he shall pay the prescribed fee notwithstanding the exemption granted in respect of the said fee before the amount of compensation is paid to him"

       In exercise of powers conferred by clauses (a) and (d) of Section 176 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and all other powers, enabling it in this behalf, the Government of Maharashtra has introduced second amendment in the Maharashtra Motor Vehicles Ru1es. This amendment has been made on 16th August, 1996. If, regard is had to subrule (3) of Rule 257 of the Maharashtra Motor Vehicles (Second Amendment) Rules, 1996, the Claims Tribunal can very well exempt an applicant from payment of the fee payable on every application for compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. This amendment is already on the statute book. Under the circumstance, the Ex-officio Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal shou1d have become activist enough to extend the benefit of exemption to the petitioner claimants taking into consideration their plight. The widow has stated in her application that she is a poor lady and therefore, she is unable to pay Court fee. It is to be borne in mind that a common man coming to the Court of law is ill-fed, ill-dad and ill-sheltered. He expects prompt and inexpensive dispensation of justice. The common man cannot afford to Court litigation. The rising tide of unfulfilled expectations and minimum expectations of masses of ill-fed, ill-clad, ill- sheltered population cannot be stopped by huge shrines of justice, by outward decoration and pious declaration appearing in the statute book. While dealing with the cases of ill-fed, ill- clad and ill-sheltered litigants, the judges should not act as strangers and silent onlookers. In genuine cases the Claims Tribunal should be more activities in granting benefits of exemption in the matter of payment of Court fees, as contemplated in sub-rule 3 of Rule 257 of the Maharashtra Motor Vehicles (Second Amendment) Rules, 1996. It is to be noted that glory of law lies in the creative ability of the judges. If, the Government notification of 1st October, 1994 does not come to the rescue of the petitioner claimants, the Exofficio Member of the Motor Claims Tribunal should have granted exemption under the sub-rule 3 of Rule 257 of the Maharashtra Motor Vehicles (Second Amendment) Rules, 1996 and ought to have registered the claim petition.

       Motor Vehicles Act. 1988

       Section 166-Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959, Section 46-Maharashtra Govt. Notification, dt.1.10.1994-Woman litigants-Claim petition-Court Fees-Exemption from-Held-Govt. Notification not applicable to claim petition filed under Section 166 of MV Act-It does not fall in First or Second Schedule of Bombay Court Fees Act.- The Government of Maharashtra remits fee payable by the woman litigants on any of the plaints, applications, petitions, memorandum of appeal or any of the documents specified in the First and Second Schedule to the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959, to be filed in Civil Family or Criminal Courts. The learned Advocate appears to have been fascinated by the word petition used in the notification. He has not taken into consideration further rider for application of the Government Notification, dated 1st October, 1994. No doubt, the claimants have filed petition for compensation. But, claim petition filed by the petitioner claimants does not at all fall in the First or Second Schedule to the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959. Under the circumstances, the Government Notification, dated 1st October, 1994 cannot be pressed into service. The rejection order passed by the Ex-officio member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is, therefore, proper.

       Section 166-Bombay Court Fee. Act, 1959, Section 46--Maharashtra Govt. Notification, dated 1.10.1994-Filing of claim petition under woman litigants-Grant of exemption from court-fees-Non-applicability of notification.