JUDGMENT

Jijoy Sebastian, husband of the first petitioner, father of petitioners 2 and 3 and son of petitioners 4 and 5 died in a motor accident on 14.5.2011. The petitioners thereupon filed a claim petition in the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pala, claiming the sum of Rs.40,00,000/- as compensation from the owner, the driver and the insurer of an autorickshaw, the negligent driving of which according to the petitioners resulted in the accident. On that claim petition the sum of Rs.39,373/- was payable as court fee, computed in terms of rule 397 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. In the claim petition itself the petitioners had stated that they are not in a position to pay the court fee at present and that they are agreeable to have the court fee recovered from the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. They also filed I.A.No.1174 of 2011 to exempt them from payment of court fee, wherein also they had stated that they do not have the means to pay the court fee. By Ext.P3 order passed on 8.6.2011 the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal rejected the application for exemption from payment of court fee. The order reads as follows:-

“This petition is for exemption from payment of Court Fee. Not exempted.”

2. Aggrieved by Ext.P3, the petitioners filed Ext.P4 petition seeking a review of the said order. By Ext.P5 order passed on 1.7.2011 the review petition was dismissed holding that the petitioner has not produced evidence or records to substantiate her contention that she is a pauper. Hence this writ petition challenging Exts.P3 and P5 orders. The main contention raised by the petitioners is that the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal erred in rejecting the application for exemption from payment of court fee on the ground that the petitioners have not proved that they are indigent persons. It is contended that an enquiry in terms of Order XXXIII of the Code of Civil Procedure is not required to be conducted when a claimant seeks exemption from payment of court fee in view of the stipulations contained in the first proviso to sub-rule (2) of rule 397 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules.

3. A learned single Judge of the Madras High Court considered a similar question in T.Kanchana Devi v. R.D.Mani, 2004 ACJ 1844. Rule 24(3) of the Tamil Nadu Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Rules, 1989, empowered the Claims Tribunal in its discretion to exempt any party from payment of the court fee prescribed under sub-rule (1) thereof. In the first proviso to sub- rule (2) of rule 24 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal Rules, 1989, it is stipulated that where a claim of a party has been accepted by the Claims Tribunal, the party shall have to pay the prescribed fees, exemption in respect of which had been granted initially, before a copy of the judgment is obtained. Interpreting the said provisions, a learned single Judge of the Madras High Court held that an application seeking exemption from payment of court fee is not similar to an application claiming dispensation of court fee or an application for leave to sue as an indigent person. It was held that there is no need to conduct a roving enquiry as provided under the Code of Civil Procedure and that if the claimant satisfies the Tribunal that he is not in a position to pay the required court fee, it may, in its discretion, exempt him from payment of the court fee. The learned Judge also took note of the fact that by virtue of the proviso to sub-rule (2) of rule 24, in the event of the claimant succeeding, he will not be entitled to get a copy of the judgment unless the court fee payable is paid.

4. The stipulation in rule 397 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules is however, different. The said rule reads as follows:-

“397. Fees. -- (1) Every application under sub-section (1) of Section 166 of the Act, for payment of compensation shall be accompanied by a fee of rupee one in the form of Court Fee Stamp, if the claim in a case of accident is confined to special damages and if an