Honble SHARMA, J. – In the light and shade of life, this is our only role, wailing we move from night to morn, from morn, some how, to eye. Even these words cannot fully describe the feelings and sufferings of those dependents whose bread earners were the victims of accidents. But, can any body imagine that prior to Au- gust, 1990, dependents of bread- earner who was crushed by a Motor Vehicle, could have instituted claim petition of any amount of compensation merely by praying Court fee of Rs. ten, Where as the dependents of another bread-eamer who was Crushed by a bullock -cart could not have instituted such a claim -petition on court fee of rupees ten but they had to pay ad-valoren fee on the amount of compensation claimed by them.

(2). Court fee chargeable for an accident claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act was Rs. 10/- whereas under the Fatal Accidents Act, it was Ad-valorem. This anomaly was cured by the Rajasthan Court Fees and Suits Valuation (Amend- ment) Act, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as the Amending Act, 1990) by inserting following proviso in Section 21 of the Old Act, 1961 :

``Provided that in an action or suit for damages under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, a fixed fee of rupees ten shall be payable on the plaint or memorandum of appeal.

Amending Act, 1990 received assent of the Governor on 7th day of August, 1990 and was published in Rajasthan Gazette Extraordinary 4(Ka) dated 9.8.90 at page 21. It came into force at once.

(3). Short question which arises for consideration in this revision is as to whether the provisions of Amending Act, 1990 are applicable to the suits pending on the date when the said Act came into force?

(4). This question has emerged from the following facts :

(i) The petitioners filed a suit for compensation under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 on 12.5.86 in the court of the District Judge Jaipur City, which was assigned to the court of the Additional District Judge

No. 1 Jaipur City. In the suit the petitioners averred that due to sheer negligence and gross dereliction in duty by the defendants non-petitioner No. 1 (RSEB), No. 3 (Ex-Engineer) and No. 5, (Jr. Engineer) in particular, Amit, the son of the petitioners, aged about 7 years lost his life as they did not rectify the defect of following electric current in the stray wire, despite repeated reports made during two consecutive days before the fateful day. Due to this negligence, the son of the petitioner was electrocuted.

(ii) The plaintiffs-petitioners, according to the advice of their counsel, paid the court fees of Rs. 300/- on the claim under the residuary sec- tion 45 of the Rajasthan Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1961.

(iii) On behalf of defendant non-petitioner No. 1 and No. 5, an application under Order 7 Rules 11 CPC was filed on 14.10.1986 stating therein that as the proper court fee was not paid the suit be dismissed at the threshold. The trial court rejected the application directing the defendants to take all objections in their written statements.

(iv) Only the defendants No. 1, 4 and 5 file their statements and other defendants were set exparte.. As many as 8 issues were framed by the trial court on 27.8.1990. Issue No. 5 was as under :

Whether insufficient court fee has been paid?

The burden to prove this issue was on defendants.

(v) The plaintiffs petitioners commenced to lead evidence and examined their three witnesses till 27.7.1992. On 14.10.1992 the trial court passed an order that before recording further evidence arguments on Issue No. 5 would be heard.

(vi) The trial court vide order dated 8.4.1994 decided issue No. 5 against the plaintiff-petitioners holding that Amending Act of 1990 came into force after institution of the suit and for that reason it was not applicable to the pending suits.

(vii) The order dated 8.4.1994 has been assailed in this revision.

(5). I have given my anxious and thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before me by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the imp

Click Here to Read the rest of this document