JUDGMENT

I.M. QUDDUSI, ACJ. — By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite party No.5 i.e. 1st M.A.C.T., Mayurbhanj, Baripada to disburse the amount settled through Lok Adalat to them without demanding any Court fees on the awarded amount.

2. In view of the above prayer, the question before this Court is whether the claimant in whose favour the accident claim has been settled through Lok Adalat is liable to deposit the Court fee first and thereafter get a certification from the M.A.C.T. and on the basis of the certificate receive back from the Collector the full amount of Court fee or he can receive the claim even without depositing the Court fees, if not already deposited.

3. In the instant case, the petitioners are the legal heirs of the deceased Siba Sankar Das, who died on 3.7.2007 in a road accident and they filed the case before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mayurbhanj, Baripada claiming compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, (in short ‘the Act, 1988’), which was registered as Misc. Case No.116 of 2007. They did not pay Court fees at the time of filing of the claim peti¬tion and their claim petition was referred to the Zonal Mega Lok Adalat conducted at Balasore on 1.11.2008. The case was amicably settled in the Lok Adalat and an award, with the consent of the insurance companies, to the tune of Rs.4,98,000/- has been passed in favour of the claimants. Consequently, the insurance company deposited the awarded amount in shape of cheques in the name of the claimants as per terms and conditions decided between the parties in the said Lok Adalat. But since no Court fee was paid, the learned 1st M.A.C.T. insisted the claimants to deposit the Court fees. Hence, the instant writ petition.

4. Before proceeding further, it is necessary to peruse Sub-section 1 of Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (in short ‘The Act, 1987’), which is reproduced as under :

“Every award of the Lok Adalat shall be deemed to be decree of a Civil Court or, as the case may be, an order of any other Court and where a compromise or settlement has been arrived at, by a Lok Adalat in a case referred to it under Sub-section (1) of Section 20, the Court-fee paid in such case shall be refunded in the manner provided under the Court-fees Act, 1870.”

5. In view of the above quoted provisions and to avoid any conflict with the Court Fees Act, the Court Fees Act was amended by an Orissa Amendment by amending Section 13(2). Sub-section (2) of Section 13 is quoted below :

“13. (2) Where a compromise or settlement has been arrived at, by a Lok Adalat in a case referred to it under Sub-section (1) of Section 20 of Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, the Court by which the case was so referred to the Lok Adalat shall grant a certificate to the party or every party to the case who paid any Court-fee in that case, authorizing him to receive back from the Collector the full amount of the fee so paid.”

6. Here it is also necessary to quote the provisions of Sub-section 2 of Section 22 of the Orissa Motor Vehicles (Acci¬dent Claims Tribunals) Rules, 1960 (in short ‘The Rules, 1960), which is reproduced as under :

“22.(2) The Claims Tribunal may, in its discretion, exempt a party from the payment of fee prescribed under Sub-rule (1) :

Provided that where the claim of a party is accepted, wheth¬er in full or in part, by the Claims Tribunal, the party shall be liable to pay the fees exempted under this Sub-rule, at the time of receiving the award.”

7. Before considering the question after making cumulative study of the above quoted provisions, it is necessary to go through the preamble of the Act, 1987 which reads as under :

“An act to constitute legal services authorities to provide free and competent legal service to the weaker sections of the society to ensure that opportunities for securing justice are not denied to any citizen by reason of