Appellants, being neither insurers nor owners, are permitted to restrict claims for court fees to half of the ad valorem fees under Section 7(2) of the Maharashtra Court Fees Act.

JUDGMENT :

SHAILESH P. BRAHME J.

1. Heard both sides finally.

2. The issue involved in these revisions is as to whether appellants, who are neither insurer, nor owner in appeal for enhancement preferred against judgment and award of the claims tribunal passed U/Sec. 166 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT (hereafter referred as to the ‘M.V. Act’ for the sake of brevity and convenience) can restrict the value or claim for payment of lessor court fees at the time of filing of appeal.

3. Revisional Petitioners suffered adjudication by Claims Tribunal and they have approached High Court, challenging the award. The appeals preferred by them are registered, but office raised objection of deficit Court fees. The demand is questioned by them and the matter is referred to learned Taxing Officer. The Taxing Officer rendered decision upholding the office objection of deficit court fees by passing separate orders which are under challenge, under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

4. It is informed by petitioners that the claim of the o deficit court fee is debatable and the litigants are required to face such objection frequently. In order to settle the controversy by my previous order, I called upon the members of the Bar to address the issue. Accordingly with the assistance of learned Counsels who eagerly responded, I propose to decide these matters of general importance.

5. In Civil Revision Application No.106/2025, Appellant is the original Claimant who had met with accident and sustained injuries affecting his earning capacity. He had claimed Rs. 40,00,000/- as compensation before the Tribunal and paid Court fees which was maximum before the Tribunal. His claim was partially allowed awarding compensation of Rs. 5,50,000/- with interest. Being aggrieved by the award and for enhancement of compensation, appeal is preferred valuing the claim at Rs. 1,00,000/- for purpose of Court fees. An amount of Rs.3205/- is paid towards Court fees. The office raised objection that Appellant is liable to pay Court fees for difference of amount. The claim restricted to Rs. 1,00,000/- is not accepted by the office and he is called upon to pay Rs.24,410/- towards deficit Court fees.

6. In Civil Revision Application Nos.128/2025; 137/2025; 95/2025 and 127/2025, Appellant before Court was neither owner, nor insurer. The vehicle involved in the accident was purchased by him, but it was not registered with the competent authority. The Tribunal saddled the liability by the impugned award treating him to be the owner of the vehicle. Hence he preferred appeals. In the foot note of the memorandum of the appeal, it is stated that he is paying half of the ad valorem fees as he is neither insurer, nor owner. His claim for Court fees is objected by the office. Ultimately the learned Taxing Officer upheld the objection and called upon Appellant to pay full ad valorem fees.

7. Learned Counsels Mr. Manoj Shinde, Mr. Mohit Deshmukh, Mr. S.V. Natu, Mr. Avinash Khande, Mr. P.C. Mayure canvassed their submissions objecting the decision of the Taxing Officer in following manner :

(i) The Appellant – Original Claimant when prefers appeal against judgment and award passed by the Tribunal either wholly or partially dismissing the claim would be liable to pay Court fees as per Section 7 (2)(ii) of the Maharashtra Court Fees Act (Hereinafter referred to ‘Act’). It is permissible for such Appellant to restrict the claim for payment of one half of ad valorem fees.

(ii) Section 7 (2) of