Back
2009 Supreme(Mad) 2030
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. HARIPARANTHAMAN
A. Valliammal & Others
Versus
Chitra Travels, Tiruppur District & Others
C.M.A.(MD)SR.Nos.12746, 12756 & 12778 of 2009
Decided On : 02-07-2009
For the Appellants:D. Venkatesh, J. Anandkumar, Na.Palaniyandi Advocates.
For the Respondents: ----
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the fixed court fee of Re.1/- is payable under Rule 24(1A) only if the claim in the appeal is confined to special damage, and it cannot be extended based on the grievance against the award of the Tribunal or the fixation of liability.
Headnote:
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - Court Fee - Rule 24(1A) of Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal Rules, 1989 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Rule 24, Rule 24(1A), Sections 140, 147, 163A, 165, 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - The judgment discusses the interpretation of Rule 24(1A) and its application to appeals challenging the fixation of liability on the owner of the vehicle and the insurer. It also highlights the definitions of 'special damages' and 'general damages' and their relevance to the court fee payable under the rules.
Fact of the Case:
The appeals arose from awards passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals, where the claimants and the vehicle owner challenged the fixation of liability and court fee payment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the fixed court fee of Re.1/- is payable under Rule 24(1A) only if the claim in the appeal is confined to special damage. The court rejected the contention that the court fee should be based on the grievance against the award of the Tribunal or the fixation of liability.
Issues: The main issue was whether a fixed court fee of Re.1/- is the proper court fee under Rule 24(1A) in cases where the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not challenged, but the fixation of liability on one of the respondents is challenged.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the law laid down in a previous case was incorrect and clarified that the fixed court fee of Re.1/- is payable only if the claim in the appeal is confined to special damage.
Final Decision: The court directed the Registry to return the papers in the appeals to their respective counsel, giving them the option of confining the appeal to special damage or paying the deficit court fee.
V. Ramasubramanian, J.
All these appeals arise out of the awards passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals in various petitions. For easy appreciation, the details are furnished in a tabular form as follows:-CMA(MD)SR No. MCOP No. Name of the Court Date of judgment and decree 12746 of 2009 420 of 2002 Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Sub Court), Palani. 19/06/2008
12756 of 2009 16 of 2007 Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Sub Court), Devakottai.
18/09/2007
12778 of 2009 3 of 2007 Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Sub Court), Tuticorin. 29/09/2008
2. While C.M.A.SR. No.12746 of 2009 is by the claimant in M.C.O.P. No.420 of 2002, on the grievance that the mere no fault liability of Rs.25,000/-was awarded by the Tribunal as against her claim of Rs.2 lakhs, the appeal in C.M.A.SR.No.12756 of 2009 is filed by the owner of the vehicle, on the grievance that the liability was fixed on him rather than on the Insurance Company. The other appeal C.M.A.SR.No.12778 of 2009 is by the claimant in M.C.O.P.No.3 of 2007, on the grievance that the Tribunal fixed the liability only on the owner of the vehicle, rather than on the Insurance Company.
3. In all the above appeals, the appellants had affixed a fixed court fee of Re.1/- only. Therefore, the Registry returned the papers pointing out that proper court fee has not been paid as per Section 24 (1A) of the Tamil Nadu Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Rules, 1989.
4. Thecounsel in these cases re-presented the papers, contending that the court fee paid was proper, in the light of the decision of J.A.K.Sampathkumar, J., in Karuthapandi vs. R.Sivakumar and another {2006 (5) CTC 526}. Therefore, the papers were placed before G.M.Akbar Ali, J., for orders as to maintainability.
5. After analysing the facts leading to the present appeals and after adverting to Rules 24 and 24 (1A) of the aforesaid Rules and to the provisions of the Act, G.M.Akbar Ali, J., found himself unable to agree with the ratio laid down by J.A.K.Sampathkumar, J., in Karuthapandi vs. R.Sivakumar and another {2006 (5) CTC 526}. Therefore, the question has been referred to us for consideration.
6. Wehave heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant in all these appeals and we have also gone through the opinion of G.M.Akbar Ali,J.
7. In Karuthapandi, the appeal was filed by the claimant challenging the fixation of liability by the Tribunal on the owner of the vehicle and exonerating the insurer of any liability. Therefore, after referring to Rule 24(1A) of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal Rules 1989, J.A.K.Sampathkumar,J., held that when the appeal is not for enhancement of compensation but only on the question of fixation of liability between the owner and the insurer, the appeal is incapable of valuation and consequently, a fixed court fee of Re.1/- is sufficient.
8. But in the order of reference, the learned Judge pointed out that the Rule deals with three types of claims viz., (i) compensation (ii) special damages and (iii) general damages. The learned Judge also pointed out that though Sections 140, 147, 163A, 165 and 167 of the Act, use the word "compensation", the expressions "special damages" and "general damages" are not defined in the Act. The learned Judge then referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in R.D.Hattangadi vs. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd {AIR 1995 SC 755}, wherein the Court indicated what constituted pecuniary and non pecuniary damages. The learned Judge also referred to the decision in Cholan Roadways Corporation Ltd vs. Ahmed Thambi {2006 (4) CTC 433}, where pecuniary and non pecuniary losses were listed out by the Court. On the strength of the above statutory provisions and these decisions, the learned Judge found it not possible to agree with the view expressed in Karuthapandi.
9. Therefore, the question that arises for consideration is as to whether a fixed court fee of Re.1/-is the proper court fee under Rule 24(1A), in cases where the quant
