Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(Ker) 980

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.B. SURESH KUMAR, J.
Santhosh C. S/o Babu C. – Petitioner
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 39184 of 2016
Decided On : 03-12-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Sri. M.V. Amaresan.
For the Respondent: Sri. P. Santhosh Kumar.

Point of law: If the fee in terms of sub-rule (1) of Rule 397 could be exempted, the fee in terms of sub-section (1) of Section 76 of the Court Fees Act also could be exempted, for the same is only an addition to the fee prescribed under sub-rule (1) of Rule 397.

Headnote:
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 159 -Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959-sub-section (1) of Section 76-Kerala Finance Act, 2016-Declaration that sub-section (1) of Section 76 of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 (the Court Fees Act) as amended in terms of the Kerala Finance Act, 2016 does not apply to applications for compensation before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (the Tribunal). They also seek alternatively, a declaration that insistence of additional court fee in terms of sub-section (1) of Section 76 of the Court Fees Act for instituting applications for compensation before the Tribunal is illegal and unconstitutional.
Finding of the Court:
There is also no merit in the challenge to sub-section (1) of Section 76 of the Court Fees Act on the ground that it is discriminatory inasmuch as the litigants before the Family Courts are exempted from the purview of the said provision. It is trite that a question of discrimination in the context of a challenge against a statutory provision arises only when persons are differently classified without there being an intelligible basis which has a nexus to the object sought to be achieved by the statute. There is no case for the petitioners that the litigants before the Family Court and the Tribunal are similarly placed. As such, merely for the reason that a category of litigants are exempted from the purview of sub-section (1) of Section 76 of the Court Fees Act, the petitioners cannot be heard to contend that the provision is discriminatory- No doubt, the provisions in the Motor Vehicles Act conferring right on the victims of motor accidents to claim compensation for the loss caused to them is a piece of beneficial legislation, but as noted and as found, the requirements in terms of sub-rule (1) of Rule 397 of the Motor Vehicles Rules and sub-section (1) of Section 76 of the Court Fees Act do not create any impediment for those victims of motor accidents who cannot afford to make the said payments in the matter of claiming the compensation legitimately due to them. Of course, if cost is not ordered, the fee and additional court fee are liable to be recovered from the compensation. That position by itself cannot be a reason to hold that the requirement in terms of the aforesaid statutory position is an impediment for the victims of motor accidents to claim the compensation. The challenge to the statutory provision on the ground that it operates as a burden to victims of motor accidents in the matter of claiming the compensation which they are legitimately entitled to is therefore, only to be rejected.
Result: Writ petition dismissed

JUDGMENT :

P.B. SURESH KUMAR, J.

1. Petitioners seek in this writ petition, among others, a declaration that sub-section (1) of Section 76 of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 (the Court Fees Act) as amended in terms of the Kerala Finance Act, 2016 does not apply to applications for compensation before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (the Tribunal). They also seek alternatively, a declaration that insistence of additional court fee in terms of sub-section (1) of Section 76 of the Court Fees Act for instituting applications for compensation before the Tribunal is illegal and unconstitutional.

2. The brief facts leading to the writ petition as narrated by the petitioners are the following:

The first petitioner is stated to be a victim of a motor accident that took place on 21.5.2016. It is stated that though a crime was registered by the Payyannur police in connection with the said accident, the Accident Information Report in respect of the said occurrence has not been forwarded by the officer in charge of the concerned police Station to the jurisdictional Tribunal, as required under Section 159 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Motor Vehicles Act). The second petitioner is stated to be the father of a person who died in a motor accident that took place on 08.08.2016. It is stated that Accident Information Report in respect of the said accident was also not forwarded by the officer in charge of the concerned police Station to the jurisdictional Tribunal. It is stated that, in the circumstances, proceedings have not been initiated by the Tribunal in terms of sub-section (4) of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for providing compensation to the petitioners for the loss caused to them in the motor accidents. It is also stated that in the circumstances, though the first petitioner instituted an application for compensation before the second respondent Tribunal, the same is not being entertained since the first petitioner has not remitted the additional court fee payable in terms of sub-section (1) of Section 76 of the Court Fees Act. Similarly, it is stated that though the second petitioner has instituted an original petition before the said Tribunal claiming a sum of Rs. 60 lakhs towards compensation as O.P. (MV) No. 1219 of 2016 by remitting 10% of the additional court fee payable in terms of sub-section (1) of Section 76 of the Act, he is unable to pursue the application on account of his inability to pay the balance additional court fee. The petitioners are seeking the reliefs aforesaid in the above background. They also seek in the writ petition, directions to the State Government to take appropriate action against the police officers who fail to forward Accident Information Reports to the Tribunals on the premise that it is the said failure on the part of the police officers that compels the petitioners and other similarly placed persons to institute applications claiming compensation before the Tribunal by remitting fee in terms of sub-rule (1) of Rule 397 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (the Motor Vehicles Rules) and additional court fee in terms of sub-section (1) of Section 76 of the Court Fees Act.

3. The case set out by the petitioners in the writ petition is that the Court Fees Act does not apply to applications for compensation before the Tribunals; that even if the Court Fees Act applies to applications before the Tribunals, sub-section (1) of Section 76 of the said Act is unconstitutional inasmuch as it is arbitrary and that even if the Court Fees Act applies to applications before the Tribunals and sub-section (1) of Section 76 of the Court Fees Act is valid, insofar as the victims of motor accidents are compelled to remit the fee in terms of Rule 397 of the Motor Vehicles Rules and additional court fee in terms of sub-section (1) of Section 76 of the Court Fees Act on account

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2021 Supreme(Ker) 980

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMP.B. SURESH KUMAR, J.Santhosh C. S/o Babu C. – PetitionerVersusState of Kerala – RespondentW.P. (C) No. 39184 of 2016Decided On : 03-12-2021

Point of law: If the fee in terms of sub-rule (1) of Rule 397 could be exempted, the fee in terms of sub-section (1) of Section 76 of the Court Fees Act also could be exempted, for the same is only an addition to the fee prescribed under sub-rule (1) of Rule 397.

Cases Referred (2)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.B. SURESH KUMAR, J.
Santhosh C. S/o Babu C. – Petitioner
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 39184 of 2016
Decided On : 03-12-2021