The court emphasized that discretion under Rule 397(2) must consider each applicant's financial circumstances, and prior rulings must guide but not mandate outcomes.

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner challenges Ext. P3 order of the Tribunal by which the exemption sought for by the petitioner from payment of court fees prescribed under sub Rule(1) of Rule 397 of the Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules , 1989, as per sub Rule(2) was declined. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the order of rejection would go against the dictum laid down by this Court in Suma v. Rajesh [2013 ACJ 990] and in any event, the averments in the petition would disclose sufficient reasons which ought to have been looked into by the Tribunal before exercising its discretion under sub Rule(2) of Rule 397 of the Rules.

2. On a reading of Suma (supra) it cannot be said that this Court had laid down the law that on an application being filed for exemption, the same should O.P.(M.A.C) No. 14 of 2014 2 always be allowed by the Tribunals. What has been specifically noticed is that, the discretion conferred on the Tribunal under Rule (2) does not make it incumbent upon the Tribunal to conduct a roving enquiry, as to whether the petitioner is capable of paying the court fees or not; as is the mandate under the Code of Civil Procedure. Considering the aspect that the exemption granted is not a total waiver and that in any event, the amounts awarded would be deducted, to the extent of the court fees and only the balance would be eventually disbursed; the Court found that the Tribunal ought to have allowed the application on the facts disclosed in the said case. 3. The facts disclosed in the aforesaid decision is that, the parents, wife and children of a person who succumbed to injuries in a motor accident was before the Court claiming compensation for the death of the only breadwinner of the family. The specific averment made by the claimants in the Claim petition itself was that the O.P.(M.A.C) No. 14 of 2014 3 claimants were wholly dependant upon the deceased for their livelihood and that the death of the only breadwinner of the family has caused financial crisis. There was also specific averment to the effect that the claimants were not employed and do not own any property, generating income and it is in such circumstance that, this Court directed the claimants therein to be granted exemption from payment of court fees.

4. In the instant case, the claimant is said to be unconscious by reason of the injuries suffered in the accident, which led to the filing of the claim. It is also seen from the applications filed that the affidavit has been affirmed by the husband of the petitioner. Hence the finding of the Tribunal that the petitioner has a monthly income of Rs. 60,000/- cannot be sustained. The averment with respect to the income is only to substantiate the loss of earning capacity and claim compensation on that count. In such circumstance, it is directed that the petitioner be O.P.(M.A.C) No. 14 of 2014 4 granted exemption from remitting the Court fees as provided under sub Rule (2) of Rule 397 of the Act. Ext. P3 is set aside. The Tribunal shall consider the claim application granting exemption for payment of court fees.

The Original Petition is allowed.