How Motor Accident Claimants in Kerala Can Seek Exemption from Court Fees and the Legal Benefit Fund

When a victim of a road accident in Kerala approaches a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) for compensation, an immediate practical question arises: how much court fee must be paid, and can an indigent claimant be excused from paying it? What is the rule governing court fees exemption for MACT claims in Kerala? The short answer is that the exemption is governed primarily by Rule 397 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, read with the Legal Benefit Fund (LBF) provisions under the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959.

Rule 397 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989

Rule 397 is the primary provision prescribing court fees for claim petitions before the MACT in Kerala.

• Sub-rule (1) fixes the fee structure: a fee of one rupee (by Court Fee Stamp) for claims confined to special damages, and an ad valorem fee on the aggregate of special and general damages where general damages are claimed. 2020 0 Supreme(Ker) 146
• Sub-rule (2) confers a discretionary power on the Claims Tribunal to exempt a party from payment of the prescribed fee. 2020 0 Supreme(Ker) 146

The exemption is not an absolute waiver. The proviso to sub-rule (2) makes clear that if the claimant succeeds and an award is made, the party liable to pay compensation must deposit the award amount before the Tribunal, and the claimant receives only the amount available after deducting the court fee that would have been paid had he not been exempted. 2020 0 Supreme(Ker) 146 and 2011 0 Supreme(Ker) 664

Kerala High Court decisions have also clarified that the Tribunal need not conduct a detailed inquiry into the claimant's financial status before exercising this discretion; a claimant who demonstrates inability to pay is generally entitled to have the discretion exercised in their favour. 2011 Supreme(Online)(KER) 32268

One Petition for Both Court Fee and LBF Exemption

A frequent practice issue is Tribunals insisting on two separate applications — one for court fee exemption and another for exemption from the Legal Benefit Fund. In Joseph T.J. vs. Alex Abraham (MACA 1319/2014), the Kerala High Court held that rejecting a petition on this ground is without any legal foundation, since no rule, provision, or practice mandates bifurcated applications. A single petition suffices for exemption from both. 2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 55678

The Legal Benefit Fund as an Additional Court Fee

The LBF is levied under Section 76 of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959, and is credited to a fund for the benefit of the legal profession. The Kerala High Court has consistently held that the LBF is, in substance, an additional court fee:

• In Shree Dhanwantri Chits India Private Limited v. Babu and Francis Cletus v. Koppara Kunhimon, the Court reiterated that the LBF continues to remain nothing but court fee, and the whole of it is refundable under Section 69A of the Act. 2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 55678
• The exemption scheme in sub-rule (2) of Rule 397 applies equally to the additional court fee payable under sub-section (1) of Section 76 — a claimant exempted under Rule 397(2) need not pay the LBF separately, and that fee is recoverable from the proportionate cost ordered by the Tribunal. 2021 0 Supreme(Ker) 980

Recovery Through Proportionate Cost

Following the law declared in Jeena vs. Satheesh Babu (2011 (3) KLT 943), Tribunals in Kerala have jurisdiction to award proportionate cost to successful claimants. Where such costs are awarded, the fee paid (or exempted) on the claim petition can be recovered by the claimant from the proportionate cost — not from the compensation amount itself. 2021 0 Supreme(Ker) 980

However, where the Tribunal disallows part of an exorbitant claim, the fee attributable to the disallowed portion may have to be borne by the claimant. 2021 0 Supreme(Ker) 980

Appeals Under Section 173: A Different Fee Regime

Exemption under Rule 397(2) does not extend to appeals. Since the Kerala Motor Vehicles (5th Amendment) Rules, 2014 (effective 16.01.2015), sub-rule (3) of Rule 397 prescribes an appeal fee of 2% of the excess amount claimed, with a minimum of Rs. 1,000. There is no provision analogous to sub-rule (2) for exempting appellants, so appellants seeking relief from fee must instead invoke the provisions applicable to indigent persons under Order XXXIII and Order XLIV of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2020 0 Supreme(Ker) 146

The Division Bench in Sivadasan C. v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. further held that the enhanced fee cannot be levied on appeals arising from claim petitions filed before 16.01.2015, unless the amendment is expressly retrospective. 2020 0 Supreme(Ker) 146

This non-retrospectivity principle resonates across jurisdictions — for instance, Madhya Pradesh decisions requiring court fee on enhanced amounts in appeals under Section 173 at the time of filing, and comparative rulings under the Tamil Nadu and Sikkim Motor Vehicles Rules, reflect a broadly similar structure of ad valorem fees with conditional exemption. 2023 0 Supreme(MP) 98 and 2015 0 Supreme(Sikk) 100

Key Takeaways

• Rule 397(2), Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 is the governing provision for court fee exemption in MACT claim petitions; the discretion lies with the Tribunal, and the fee is deducted from the award if the claim succeeds.
• The Legal Benefit Fund under Section 76 is an additional court fee, refundable under Section 69A, and covered by the same exemption — sought through a single petition.
• Fees on exempted claims are typically recovered from proportionate cost, not compensation.
• Appeals under Section 173 carry a separate fee (2% of the excess claimed, minimum Rs. 1,000 from 16.01.2015), with no Rule 397(2)-style exemption; relief must be sought under CPC provisions.
• Claimants should file a properly drafted exemption petition stating inability to pay at the outset, avoiding later disputes.

Since exemption is discretionary and outcomes depend on the facts of each case, anyone dealing with an MACT claim in Kerala may wish to consult the current rules and a qualified practitioner before relying on any general position stated here.