The main legal point established in the judgment is the conflicting views on whether court fees are payable on an appeal under section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, arising from an application under section 16(1) read with section 13(1-A) of the said Act, and the matter being directed to the Division Bench for resolution.

1. This revision application filed under Section 5(2) of the Maharashtra Court Fees Act 1959 read with Rule 4(v) of Chapter V of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960 challenges the order of Taxing Officer and Deputy Registrar of High Court Bench at Nagpur, passed on 05.08.2016 in First Appeal Stamp No.6175/-2016, holding that the applicants have to pay deficit court fees of Rs.12,405/-on memo of appeal filed by them under section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987.

2. Facts, which may be relevant for the purpose of deciding this revision, can be stated as follows:

The applicants are the dependants of deceased Shri Rajanna Linganna Akitwar, who according to them, died in an “untoward incident” of falling from the train carrying passengers, while traveling from Basar to Dharmabad Railway Station at KM No.427/700800 on 23.04.2012. The applicants therefore, preferred an application under section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 for grant of compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. The said application was registered in Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur as O.A.(IIu)/RCT/NGP/2013/0127.

3. However, their claim application filed before the Tribunal came to be rejected, by the Railway Claims Tribunal, vide its judgment and order dated 08.12.2015. Being aggrieved by the said order the applicants have preferred this appeal under section 23 of the Act, affixing the fixed court fee stamp of Rs.25/-on the appeal memo.

4. According to the applicants in view of the proviso to Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), they were not required to pay the court fees on their claim filed before the Railway Claims Tribunal. Hence, in the appeal preferred under Section 23 of the said Act, against rejection of their claim petition also they are not liable to pay of court fees on the amount of compensation claimed in the petition. Moreover, as per the applicants, as the order of the Railway Claims Tribunal is not a “decree”, they are not required to pay the court fee at ad valorem rate as per Article 4 Schedule I of the Maharashtra Court Fees Act, 1959. However, the office of the High Court has taken objection regarding the payment of fixed court fee stamp of Rs.25/-and hence, the matter was placed before the Taxing Officer.

5. The Taxing Officer however, did not accept the submission of the learned counsel for applicants and held that when the appeal is preferred against the order passed in application under section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, it would be having the same meaning, as good as challenging the decree in a suit; therefore, the applicants will have to pay the court fee stamp as per Article 4 of Schedule I at the ad valorem rate as prescribed in Article 1 Schedule I for the valuation of appeals. While arriving at this finding the Taxing Officer placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Sumitradevi Mahipal Kureel vs. State of Maharashtra and others Mh.L.J. 2005(4) 133, though, the learned counsel for applicants had placed reliance on the judgment of another Single Bench of this Court in the case of Sisupalan K. Vallikalayil and another vs. Union of India 2016(4) Mh.L.J. 154 and the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Diwan Brothers vs. Central Bank of India, Bombay and others AIR 1976 SC 1503. Hence, according to learned counsel for applicants, the impugned order passed by the Taxing Officer is not correct and calls for interference in this revision.

6. Thus, the only point, which is raised for my determination in this revision, is whether the applicants are liable to pay the deficit court fee stamp as directed by Taxing Officer? The finding to this point depends upon the legal issue as to whether in an appeal under section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 arising out of an application under section 16(1) read with section 13(1-A), the Court Fee is payable, as required under Article 13 under Schedule II of the Maharashtra Co