Heard on I.A.No.3208/2021 which is an application for ignoring the objection raised by the Registry of this Court regarding payment of deficit Court fees.

2- Facts of the case, in brief, are that on account of death of their husband/father/son-Jitendra in a motor accident, all the appellants filed an application before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Mandla for compensation. After the trial, their application was allowed. Learned MACT awarded Rs.8,80,000/- compensation. Being dissatisfied with the amount of compensation, all the appellants preferred the present appeal before this Court affixing a Court fees of Rs.100/- claiming that since the amount of compensation be enhanced by this Court is uncertain at this stage, the Court fees to be paid also cannot be ascertained. Therefore, they are not liable to pay the Court fees at this moment and they will pay the same after determination of the enhanced amount by this Court at the time of final disposal of this appeal.

3- Learned counsel has placed reliance on the following judgments : (i) Bhola Prasad vs. Rakesh @ Bhura Rai (M.A.No.254/2010, decided on 06.11.2012); (ii) Ramcharan vs. Rameshwar Prasad Mishra (M.A.No.1843/2011); (iii) Preetam Lal Garg vs. Vijay Kumar Gujrati (M.A.No.852/2015); (iv) Smt. Sushma Dhurve vs. Dayal Singh (M.A.No.5539/2019); (v) Suresh Maravi vs. Akash Singh Rajput (M.A.No.1996/2020); (vi) Ravi Shankar vs. Arjun Lal (M.A.No.2187/2020) and (vii) Saleem vs. Amar Singh (M.A.No.3379/2019-Indore Bench).

4- Heard the counsel at length.

5- The question raised by the appellant is squarely covered by order dated 07.06.2021 passed in M.A.No.781/2015 ( Ramratan Singh vs. Janakchand Rana , decided on 06.09.2017) and M.A.No.1057/2021 ( Smt. Jalso Bai vs. Surendra Kumar , decided on 07.06.2021) wherein, the Coordinate Bench of this Court has held that the appellants are liable to pay the Court fees on the enhancement of the compensation amount “Claimed” by them and not on the amount actually “Enhanced” by the Court at the time of final adjudication of their claim. The order passed in M.A.No.1057/2021 (supra) reads as under :

“Shri Sanjay Saini, learned counsel for the appellants.

Heard on I.A.No.3211/2021, which is an application for ignoring the objection raised by the registry of this Court regarding payment of deficit Court fees.

Brief facts of the case which are relevant for disposal of aforesaid application are that the appellants filed this Miscellaneous Appeal against the award dated 22/01/2021 passed by MACT, Mandla in Claim Case No.778/2018 for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal to the applicants. This Miscellaneous Appeal is for enhancement of a sum of Rs.6,00,000/-. Office put the objection that appeal is not maintainable without payment of Court fees on that enhanced amount i.e. Rs.6,00,000/-.

Present application has been filed for overruling that objection.

Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that according to Article 11 of Schedule II of the Court Fees Act 2.5% Court fees should be paid on the enhanced amount. The amount claimed by the appellants in the appeal cannot be called as enhanced amount, but the enhanced amount will be such as would be given by the Court after adjudication of the claim of the appellants. Registry wrongly demanded 2.5% Court fees on the amount which is claimed by the appellants in the memo of appeal. There is no certainty as to what amount will be awarded by the Court. Appellants are only required to pay Court fee on the amount which will be determined as enhanced amount by this Court at the time of judgement of this appeal. So appellants may be allowed to make payment of Court fee at the time of final decision of the appeal on enhanced compensation, which may be determined by the Court. In this regard learned counsel also placed reliance on this Court’s judgments passed in Preetam Lal Garg Vs. Vijay Kumar Gujrati, passed in MA.No.852/2015 vide order dated 21/12/2016, Smt. Sushma Dhurve & Others Vs.