AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sukhdev Singh Kang, J.—This judgment will dispose of C.W.P.S No. 2645 of 1977, 6973 and 6974 of 1976, 120 of 1978 3491 of 1979, 3655 and 1818 of 1980 and 995 of 1981 as they raise common question of law and facts.
Challenge in these writ petitions is directed to the validity and the constitutionality of the notification, dated April 28, 1974, whereby the Punjab Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Rules, 1964 (as applicable to the State of Haryana) were amended. Rule 22 was substituted which reads as under :--
Fees Every application under sub-section (1) of Section 110-A of the Act, for payment of compensation shall bear court fee stamp of--
(a) for claims of compensation not exceeding ten thousand rupees--Ten Rupees; and
(b) for claims of compensation exceeding ten thousand rupees-One-fourth of the amount chargeable as advalorem fee on the institution of suits under the Court Fees Act, 19701
The petitioners have raised various grounds for striking this notification. During the pendency of these writ petitions, the State of Haryana issued another notification on December 18, 1984, substituting rule 22 with new rule 22, which reads as under;
Fees--No court fee stamps shall be leviable on an application under sub-section (1) of Section 110-A of this Act, for payment of compensation.
It has been provided that no Court-fee stamp shall be leviable on applications under sub-section (1) of Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') for payment of compensation. Even after the introduction of the new rule 22, the State persisted in demanding the Court-fee on the applications for payment of compensation u/s 110-A (1) of the Act prior to 18th December, 1984. Another bench of the writ petitions in which this very point was involved came up hearing before a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Hon'' ble the Acting Chief Justice and I. S. Tiwana, J. On behalf of the State of Haryana, the learned Advocate General raised the same very point that the notification did not cover those cases filed prior to 18th December, 1984. In C. W. P. No. 6422 of 1975 (Mrs. Raj Chopra Wd/o Shri M. L. Chopra. and others v. State of Haryana (1985) 87 P.L.R. 306) decided on 21st December, 1984, it was observed :
The learned Advocate General appearing for the State, however, now seeks to contend that in spite of this notification, the petitions u/s 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) which are pending and in which the Court-fee has not been paid so far under the orders of this Court, Court-fee would have to be paid in the light of the old rule. We see no merit in this stand of the learned Advocate General. The whole purpose behind this notification appears to be to help the cause of justice in making it available at a lesser cost as least to those who cry to be compensated for the loss suffered by them or on whom they depended. Besides this, the notification is quite clear in as much as no Court-fee is leviable on an application u/s 110-A of the Act and as no Court-fee has been paid on the applications (may be under the orders of the Court) no Court-fee in view of the notification, referred to above, is leviable as those cases squarely fall within the ambit of the substituted rule. This view which we are taking would be furthering the just cause for which this notification has been issued.
The writ petitions were allowed. Respectfully following the ratio in Mrs. Raj Chopras''s case (supra) I allow these writ petitions and direct that no Court-fee under the old rule (prior to its amendment in 1984) would be leviable on the claim petitions filed by the petitioners before the Accident Claims Tribunal. It is further clarified that in those cases where the amount of compensation has been withheld towards the payment of Court-fee than that amount shall be paid in accordance with law to the claimants. No costs.