AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V. Dhahapalan, J.—All the above appeals arising under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (or any other enactment) have been posted before a
Single Judge in terms of the Madras High Court Appellate Side Rules as amended on 09.01.2006, published in the Tamil Nadu Gazette
Extraordinary as Amendment to the Appellate Side Rules, 1965, in ROC No. 1-A/2006/F1.
One important question which has arisen in all these appeals is in case the claim of compensation before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is
Rs. 15 lakhs and above even though the award of the Tribunal is less than Rs. 15 lakhs, whether the appeals can be placed before a Single Judge
or a Division Bench of this Court.
These appeals are filed u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 wherein it is provided as under:
Appeals
(1) Subject to the provisions of Sub-section (2), any person aggrieved by an award of a Claims Tribunal may, within ninety days from the date of
the award, prefer an appeal to the High Court;
Provided that no appeal by the person who is required to pay any amount in terms of such award shall be entertained by the High Court unless he
has deposited with it twenty five thousand rupees or fifty per cent of the amount so awarded, whichever is less, in the manner directed by the High
Court;
Provided further that the High court may entertain the appeal after the expiry of the said period of ninety days, if it is satisfied that the appellant was
prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal in time.
(2) No appeal shall lie against any award of a Claims Tribunal, if the amount in dispute in the appeal is less than ten thousand rupees.
A reading of Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ""the Act"") shows that subject to the provisions of Sub-
section (2), any person aggrieved by an award of a Claims Tribunal may, within ninety days from the date of the award, prefer an appeal to the
High Court and Section 173(2) of the Act says that no appeal shall lie against any award of a Claims Tribunal, if the amount in dispute in the
appeal is less than ten thousand rupees.
As per Order 1 Rule 1 Sub-rule 6(a) of the Madras High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the ""Appellate Side
Rules""), every appeal from an original decree of a subordinate court or a final order from the Code or any other enactment, where the value of
subject matter is below Rs. 15,00,000/- is placed before a Single Judge, while under Order 1 Rule 2 Sub-rule (5)(c) every appeal from a decree
where the value of the subject matter is Rs. 15,00,000/- or upwards will be placed before a Division Bench.
The question which arises for consideration in all the appeals is as to the meaning and scope of the words ""the value of the subject matter of the
appeal"" for the purpose of determining as to whether an appeal is to be placed before a Single Judge or Division Bench as the case may be.
A perusal of the Appellate Side Rules goes to show that from the year 1976, the words ""subject matter of appeal"" have been incorporated to
determine the question as to whether an appeal is to be placed before a Single Judge or Division Bench, while during the period prior to the year
1976, the words used are ""value of the appeal"".
An important point which has arisen now for consideration would be as to whether the words ""value of subject matter of appeal"" could be
construed as ""value of subject matter of suit or O.P. etc."" (or) ""the value of the relief granted or refused without interest"" (or) ""value of relief
granted with interest"".
Having regard to the fact that the ""valuation of the subject matter of a suit"" is specifically referred to in the Tamil Nadu Civil Courts Act
(hereinafter referred to as the ""Civil Court Act""), while providing for an appeal in Section 13 of the said Act (till it was amended in 2004), it is
obvious that the words used in the Appellate Side Rules, as the value of the subject matter of appeal cannot be equated to mean the same as the
value of subject matter of suit.
It is well established that where the statues contain different words to express the meaning for a particular purpose, it is presumed that different
words are meant to convey different meaning. Therefore, having regard to the fact that the Civil Court Act refers to the value of subject matter of a
suit to be taken into account to determine the jurisdiction of the Court for filing an appeal, the different words used in the Appellate Side Rules,
viz., value of subject matter of appeal indicates that the latter should not be taken to mean the value of the subject matter of suit.
Mr. K.S. Narasimhan, learned Counsel on behalf of other appellants also, has contended that the value of the subject matter of the appeal
cannot be construed to mean the value of the subject matter of the suit or the original claim in O.P. etc. But, it should be taken into account that the
award of the Tribunal is to be taken as value of the appeal along with interest.
He has also brought to the notice of this Court that u/s 168 of the Act, the award of the Claims Tribunal is defined as follows:
Award of the Claims Tribunal
(1) On receipt of an application for compensation made u/s 166, the Claims Tribunal shall, after giving notice of the application to the insurer and
after giving the parties (including the insurer), any opportunity of being heard, hold an inquiry into the claim or, as the case may be, each of the
claims and, subject to the provisions of Section 162 may make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just
and specifying the person or persons to whom compensation shall be paid and in making the award, the Claims Tribunal shall specify the amount
which shall be paid by the insurer or owner or driver of the vehicle involved in the accident or by all or any of them, as the case may be.
Further, he has drawn my attention to the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal Rules, 1989, in which Rule 24 provides as
follows:
Every application under Sub-section (1) of Section 166 of the Act for payment of compensation shall be accompanied by a fee of Rs. 1/- (Rupee
one only) in the form of court fee stamp, if the claim in a case of accident is confined to special damage is and if any further general damage is
claimed, an ad valorem fee shall be charged on the aggregate of the special and general damage claims on the following scale, namely,
Over Rs. 1 lakh - Rs. 372.50 plus one per cent
of the amount by which the
claim exceeds Rs. 1,00,000/-
In view of the above provisions, the learned Counsel for the appellants has contended that it would be presumed that if amount of award is less
than the amount of claim, the value of the subject matter of the appeal has to be the award amount in the claim. Therefore, the amount in dispute is
the only factor in question. The learned Counsel has made a reference to Sections 149, 168 and 173(2) of the Act as already stated supra and
from that view of the matter, no appeal shall lie against any award of the Claims Tribunal if the amount in dispute in the appeal is less than Rs.
10,000/-.
In support of his arguments, the learned Counsel Mr. K.S. Narasimhan has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Kadiyala
Peravadhannulu Vs. Kadiyala Peravadhannulu minor by mother and guardian Subbamma, and the relevant portion reads as under:
In this case, the subject matter in dispute has been clearly determined, namely, a specific amount of over Rs. 20,000/- which has to be paid by the
petitioner to the plaintiff. The learned District Judge has, in my opinion, rightly applied the principle laid down in Subramania Ayyar Vs. Supparaya
Pillai, to the present case on which ad valorem court-fee must be paid on the amount decreed.
Further reliance was placed by the learned Counsel for the appellants on a Full Bench decision of this Court reported in 1961 MLJ 65,
wherein in paragraph 3, it was held as under:
It may be noticed that the valuation in the suit was made mainly for the purpose of determining Court-fee payable; a higher valuation would not
have affected the jurisdiction of the Trial Court or altered the forum of appeal. The respondents purported to state the market value of the
properties while valuing the claim; the appellants did not raise any dispute about its correctness. Consequently, the Court was not called upon to
decide any issue relating to the value of the subject-matter of the suit. But the petitioners now claim that the value mentioned in the plaint, was not
the correct or real value, but that is more than Rs. 20,000/-.
Mr. Narasimhan has further relied on a decision of the Supreme Court reported in 1957 SCR 1024, wherein, it was held as under:
The plaint filed by the appellant valued the claim for accounts at Rs. 1,000/- u/s 7(iv)(f) of the Act and a court fee of Rs. 112-7-0 was paid on the
said amount on an ad valorem basis. In regard to the relief for partition, the fixed court fee of Rs. 100/- was paid by the appellant under Article
17-B (Madras) of Schedule II of the Act. For the purposes of jurisdiction, however, the appellant gave Rs. 15,00,000/- as the value of his share.
Further, in page 1037 of the above judgment, it was reported as under:
What would be the value for the purpose of jurisdiction in such suits is another question which often arises for decision. This question has to be
decided by reading Section 7(iv) of the Act along with Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act. This latter section provides that, where in any suits
other than those referred to in Court Fees Act, Section 7, para 5, 6 and 9 and para 10 Clause (d), court fees are payable ad valorem under the
Act, the value determinable for the purposes of jurisdiction shall be the same. In other words, so far as suits falling u/s 7, Sub-section (iv) of the
Act are concerned, Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act provides that the value as determinable for the computation of court fees and the value for
the purposes of jurisdiction shall be the same. There can be little doubt that the effect of the provisions of Section 8 is to make the value for the
purpose of jurisdiction dependent upon the value as determinable for computation of court fees and that is natural enough. The computation of
court fees in suits falling u/s 7(iv) of the Act depends upon the valuation that the plaintiff exercises his option and values his claim for the purpose of
court fees, that determines the value for jurisdiction. The value for court fees and the value for jurisdiction must no doubt be the same in such cases;
but it is the value for court fees stated by the plaintiff that is of primary importance. It is from this value that the value for jurisdiction must be
determined.
In order to decide the above question which has arisen for consideration, this Court sought the assistance of Mr. R. Muthukumaraswamy, the
learned Additional Advocate General and he has given his valuable assistance to clarify the position of law in respect of the subject matter of the
appeal.
The learned Additional Advocate General has contended that it would be proper to consider whether the words ""value of the subject matter of
the appeal"" could be construed as ""the value of the subject matter of suit or O.P. etc."" or ""the value of relief granted or refused without interest"" or
value of relief granted with interest"".
To decide the above point, he has referred to various provisions of law relevant for consideration. He has contended that having regard to the
fact that the ""valuation of the subject matter of a suit"" is specifically referred to in the Civil Court Act, while providing for an appeal in Section 13 of
the said Act (till it was amended in 2004), it is obvious that the words used in the Appellate Side Rules, as the value of the subject matter of appeal
cannot be equated to mean the same as the value of subject matter of suit.
He has further contended that it is well established that where the statues contain different words to express the meaning for a particular
purpose, it is presumed that different words are meant to convey different meaning. Therefore, having regard to the fact that the Civil Court Act
refers to the value of subject matter of a suit to be taken into account to determine the jurisdiction of the Court for filing an appeal, the different
words used in the Appellate Side Rules, viz., value of subject matter of appeal indicates that the latter should not be taken to mean the value of the
subject matter of suit.
He has made a very specific submission that the value of the subject matter of the appeal cannot be considered to mean the value of subject
matter of suit or the original claim in O.P. etc. In order to substantiate his contention, he has made a reference of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and
Suit Valuation Act, 1955, wherein, Section 52 provides as follows:
Appeals
The fee payable in an appeal shall be the same as the fee that would be payable in the court of first instance on the subject-matter of the appeal:
provided that, in levying fee on a memorandum of appeal against a final decree by a person whose appeal against the preliminary decree passed by
the Court of first instance or by the Court of appeal is pending, credit shall be given for the fee paid by such person in the appeal against the
preliminary decree.
Explanation (1) - Whether the appeal is against the refusal of a relief or against the grant of relief, the fee payable in the appeal shall be the same as
the fee that would be payable on the relief in the Court of first instance.
Explanation (2) - Costs shall not be deemed to form part of the subject-matter of the appeal except where such costs form themselves the subject-
matter of the appeal or releif is claimed as regards costs on grounds additional to, on independent, of the relief claimed regarding the main subject-
matter in the suit.
Explanation (3) - In claims which include the award of interest subsequent to the institution of the suit, the interest accrued during the pendency of
the suit till the date of decree shall be deemed to be part of the subject-matter of the appeal except where such interest is relinquished.
Explanation (4) - Where the relief prayed for in the appeal is different from the relief prayed for or refused in the Court of first instance, the fee
payable in the appeal shall be the fee that would be payable in the Court of first instance on the relief prayed for in the appeal.
Explanation (5) - Where the market value of the subject-matter of the appeal has to be ascertained for the purpose of computing or determining
the fee payable, such market value shall be ascertained as on the date of presentation of the plaint.
As could be seen from the provisions of the above referred Section, the fee payable in an appeal shall be the same as the fee that would be
payable in the court of first instance on the subject matter of appeal.
It is seen from Explanation 1 to the said Section that whether the appeal is against the refusal of a relief or against a grant of a, relief, the fee
payable in the appeal shall be the same as the fee that would be payable on the relief in the court of first instance. It would thus be seen that the
relief granted or relief refused which is appealed against, would be the subject matter of the appeal. Explanation 3 to the said Section lays down
that where claims include the award of interest, the interest accrued during the pendency of suit till date of decree shall be deemed to be part of the
subject matter of appeal, except where such interest is relinquished. Explanation 2 to the said Section provides that costs shall not be deemed to
form part of the appeal.
The learned Additional Advocate General has further referred to Section 53 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1955,
wherein, it is provided as under:
Suits not otherwise provided for -
In a suit as to whose value for the purpose of determining the jurisdiction of courts, specific provision is not otherwise made in this Act or in any
other law, value for that purpose and value for the purpose of computing the fee payable under this Act shall be the same.
In a suit where fee payable under this Act at a fixed rate, the value for the purpose of determining the jurisdiction of courts shall be the market
value or where it is not possible to estimate it at a money value such amount as the plaintiff shall state in the plaint.
In view of the above provisions, the learned Additional Advocate General has contended that where specific provision is not found in any act
for the purpose of determining the jurisdiction of courts, the value for that purpose and for the purpose of computing fees payable under Tamil
Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1955, shall be the same.
In that view of the matter, the learned Additional Advocate General has indicated that the Act provides for appeal to the High Court u/s 173
and the Appellate Side Rules provide for matters to be dealt with Single Judge or Division Bench depending on the value of the subject matter of
appeal and no provision is found in the Act or the Appellate Side Rules for determining the value for the purpose of jurisdiction.
In such circumstances, the principles of Section 53 of Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act can be applied and accordingly, the
provision in Section 52 will stand attracted to determine as to what is the subject matter of appeal, both for the purpose of determining jurisdiction
and computing the fee payable.
Having heard the learned Counsel for both sides, let me now proceed to consider the point in question before me i.e. whether the subject
matter of the appeal could be construed as value of subject matter of the suit (or) O.P. (or) the value of the relief granted or refused without
interest or value of the relief granted with interest.
The learned Additional Advocate General has pointed out that from Explanation 1 of Section 52, it is seen that whether the appeal is against
the refusal of a relief or against the grant of relief, the fee payable in the appeal shall be the same as the fee that would be payable on the relief in
the Court of first instance. Hence, in these circumstances, the principles laid down u/s 53 can be applied and accordingly, the provision in Section
52 will stand attracted to determine as to what is the subject matter of appeal, both for the purpose of determining jurisdiction and computing the
fee payable. This view is acceptable to me as per Section 52 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act which states that the subject
matter of appeal will be the value of the relief that has been granted or refused, which is sought to be appealed against plus the interest accrued
during the pendency of the proceedings till the date of decree but excluding costs awarded, if any.
In my view, the words ""value of subject matter of appeal"" occurring in the Appellate Side Rules should be construed to mean the value of relief
refused or granted which is appealed against plus the interest if any, awarded that accrues pending the proceedings till the date of decree and
excluding the costs awarded, if any. If such a value is Rs. 15,00,000/ or upwards, the appeal should be placed before a Division Bench and if it is
less than Rs. 15,00,000/-, it should be placed before a learned Single Judge irrespective of the value of the suit or O.P.
Accordingly, taking cognizance of the above rulings, I direct the Registry to list all the above appeals for admission before a learned Single
Judge or a Division Bench, as the case may be, with immediate effect, after obtaining orders from My Lord, the Honourable Chief Justice.
The question which, has arisen in the appeals is answered in the above terms.
Before parting with this matter, I would like to place on record, my appreciation to Mr. R. Muthukumaraswamy, learned Additional Advocate
General Mr. K.S. Naresimhan and Mr. P.D. Audikesavalu, learned Counsel, for their valuable guidance extended to this Court to arrive at the
proper legal position with regard to jurisdiction of appeals.