JUDGMENT
Mehta, J.
1.This group of revision applications by the State is directed against the order regarding court fees payable by an indigent person in a motor accident case. All these revision applications involve a common question and they are directed against a common judgment.
2. The question is what is the amount of court fees payable by an indigent person when he partly succeeded in a motor accident claim case. Is the court fee payable one-half of the ad valorem court fees payable on the amount claimed? Or is the court fee payable only on the amount awarded, when the former one is higher than the latter?
3. In each of these cases, the amount claimed was between 20 and 50 thousand rupees and the amount awarded is between Rs. 2,700 and Rs. 11,950. Each of the indigent claimants has now paid full court fees on the awarded amount. However, that amount is less than the amount of one-half of the court fees payable on the original claim. Therefore, according to the Inspecting Officer of Court Fees, there was a deficit of court fees of Rs. 135 to Rs. 631.25 in different cases. A tabular statement of the eight cases is as follows:
___________________________________________________________________________ Sr. No. Appln. One half Amount Amount Full court Deficit No. court fees claimed awarded fees stamp leviable on awarded amount 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ___________________________________________________________________________ 1. 67/80 725 20,000 4,200 300 425 2. 68/80 860 26,000 9,200 725 135 3. 69/80 882.50 27,000 4,360 312.50 570 4. 70/80 725 20,000 7,600 570 155 5. 71/80 837.50 25,000 4,375 525 312.50 6. 72/80 1250 50,000 11,000 820 430 7. 93/80 837.50 25,000 2,700 206.25 631.25 8. 94/80 1,100 38,860 11,950 890 210 __________________________________________________________________________
4. Out of the above eight cases, two CRAs being CRA No. 849 of 1981 and CRA No. 851 of 1981 have been decided by A.P. Ravani J. on September 13, 1985, without going into the merits of the question and the rule in those two revision applications has been discharged, because the opponents could not be served and the cost of the public notice would be disproportionate to the question involved. They were not decided on merits. The remaining revision applications are required to be heard and disposed of on merits.
5. Rule 292 of the Bombay Motor Vehicles Rules provides for payment of court fees. Sub-rule (2) provides that where the claim is for an amount not exceeding Rs. 9,999, the court fee is fixed at Rs. 10 only. Sub-rule (2) provides for the payment of one-half of the ad valorem fee leviable on the amount at which the claim is valued in the application. Then follows the proviso which is important and which reads as follows:
“Provided that if the person making the application succeed, he shall be liable to make good the deficit, if any, between the full fee payable on the amount at which the claim is awarded by the Tribunal and the fee already paid by him.”
6. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that the liability of the indigent person to pay court fees is governed by Order 33, rules 10, 11 and 10A, Civil Procedure Code, and accordingly an indigent person is liable to pay the court fees which would; have been paid by the plaintiff, had he not been permitted to sue as an indigent person and thus his liability to pay the court fees is only deferred till the result of the claim petition.
7. On behalf of the opponents in CRA No. 853 of 1981, it is submitted that the liability is to pay to deficit court fees, if any, and nothing more and, therefore, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal was right in rejection the claim of the Revenue.
8. In order to test the validity of the rival claims, let us take an illustration of three different situations:
(A) A claimant making a claim for Rs. 50,000 and paying one-half ad valorem court fees and succeeding partly to the extent of Rs. 11,000.
(B) A similar claimant for Rs. 50,000 and getting an award for Rs.11,000 but, having sued as an indigent person, has not paid one-half ad valorem court fees as in illustration (A) above, and
(C) An indigent person having made a claim for Rs. 50,000 without payment of court fees and totally failing in that claim.
8. In illustration (A), the claimant has already paid one-half of ad valorem court fees on the claim of Rs. 50,000 and he has succeeded only to the extent of Rs. 11,000. He is liable to pay full court fees on Rs. 11,000. Therefore, there is no deficit and no question of court fees recoverable arises in that case, but he is not entitled to any refund of court fees.
9. In illustration (B), the claimant is an indigent person, otherwise he is in the same situation as in illustration (A). Would he be in any manner in a better position than the claimant in illustration (A)? Even though the claimant in illustration (A) does not get any refund of court fees, this claimant wants to pay less and have the benefit of refund, which is not provided by law.
10. Illustration (C) would make the position still clear. The indigent person having totally failed in the claim, is bound to pay the full ad valorem court fees on the amount claimed and not one-half only of the ad valorem court fees.
11. Thus, there does not appear to be any reason to hold that an indigent person is liable to pay court fees only on the amount awarded and that he is not required to pay the deficit or difference in court fees between the court fee on the amount awarded and the court fee on the amount claimed. If the interpretation canvassed by the claimant is accepted, it would result in an anomaly and different interpretations of the same provision for different persons. The liability to pay one-half of the court fees is uniform and applicable to all. In respect of indigent persons, the only exception made is that the payment of court fees is deferred till disposal of the claim petition and there is no exemption from payment of one-half of the court fees on the amount claimed. It is not possible to hold that an indigent person is liable to make good only the deficit between the full fee payable on the amount awarded and the nil fee at which he is permitted to institute the petition subject deferred payment. The Tribunal was, therefore, not right in holding that under rule 292 the question of recovery of deficit court fees arises only at the time of the award when the claimant partly succeed and only to the extent of the claim awarded.
12. In the result, the revision applications succeed and the judgment and order of the Tribunal are quashed and reversed and it is directed that the claimant in each of the six claim petitions is liable to make goods the deficit court fees as claimed by the Inspecting Officer of Court Fees as mentioned in column 7 in the table above.
13. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs.