Case Note & Summary
The Bombay High Court at Goa took suo motu cognizance of a submission by the Registrar (Judicial) & Member Secretary of the Goa State Legal Services Authority regarding the plight of claimants in motor accident claim petitions who, after their cases were referred to Lok Adalat or other modes of settlement under Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and settled amicably, were unable to obtain a refund of the fees paid under Rule 278(i) of the Motor Vehicles Rules, 1991 due to the absence of a specific provision in that rule. The Court issued notice to the State Government, which filed an affidavit stating that the claimant is entitled to a certificate from the referring court to receive the full amount of court fees from the Collector under Section 21 of the Legal Services Act, 1987 read with Section 89 CPC and Section 16 of the Court Fees Act, 1870. The Amicus Curiae argued that the fees paid under Rule 278(i) are in the nature of court fees and that Section 16 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 applies to such fees, entitling the claimant to a refund. The Court accepted this submission, holding that the word 'fees' in Rule 278(i) does not divest the payment of its character as court fees, and that the provisions of Section 21 of the Legal Services Act, 1987 and Section 16 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 read with Section 89 CPC provide for refund of court fees upon settlement. The Court directed that claimants whose claim petitions are referred to any mode of settlement under Section 89 CPC and settled amicably are entitled to a refund of the fees paid under Rule 278(i) of the Motor Vehicles Rules, 1991, and that the concerned court shall issue a certificate to that effect.
Headnote
A) Motor Vehicles Act - Refund of Court Fees - Settlement under Section 89 CPC - Fees paid under Rule 278(i) of Motor Vehicles Rules, 1991 are in the nature of court fees - Claimants who settle their claims through Lok Adalat or other modes under Section 89 CPC are entitled to refund of such fees under Section 16 of Court Fees Act, 1870 read with Section 21 of Legal Services Act, 1987 - Held that the word 'fees' in Rule 278(i) does not exclude the application of Section 16 of Court Fees Act, 1870 (Paras 2-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a claimant whose claim petition is referred to any mode of settlement under Section 89 CPC and settled amicably is entitled to refund of fees paid under Rule 278(i) of the Motor Vehicles Rules, 1991, despite absence of specific provision in that rule
Final Decision
The Court held that claimants whose claim petitions are referred to any mode of settlement under Section 89 CPC and settled amicably are entitled to refund of fees paid under Rule 278(i) of Motor Vehicles Rules, 1991. The concerned court shall issue a certificate for refund of such fees.
Law Points
- Court fees paid under Rule 278(i) of Motor Vehicles Rules
- 1991 are in the nature of court fees
- refundable upon settlement under Section 89 CPC read with Section 21 of Legal Services Act
- 1987 and Section 16 of Court Fees Act
- 1870
Case Details
Suo Moto Writ Petition No. 1 of 2013
Naresh H. Patil, F. M. Reis
Y. V. Nadkarni (Amicus Curiae), A. N. S. Nadkarni (Advocate General with K. Noorani, Additional Government Advocate for Respondents)
The Chief Secretary, Government of Goa; The Director of Transport, Government of Goa
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Suo motu writ petition regarding refund of fees paid under Rule 278(i) of Motor Vehicles Rules, 1991 upon settlement of claim petitions through modes under Section 89 CPC
Remedy Sought
Direction to the State Government to provide for refund of fees paid under Rule 278(i) of Motor Vehicles Rules, 1991 to claimants whose claim petitions are settled through Lok Adalat or other modes under Section 89 CPC
Filing Reason
Submission by Registrar (Judicial) & Member Secretary of Goa State Legal Services Authority highlighting that claimants are left without refund of fees due to absence of specific provision in Rule 278(i)
Issues
Whether fees paid under Rule 278(i) of Motor Vehicles Rules, 1991 are in the nature of court fees and refundable under Section 16 of Court Fees Act, 1870 read with Section 21 of Legal Services Act, 1987 upon settlement under Section 89 CPC
Submissions/Arguments
Amicus Curiae argued that fees paid under Rule 278(i) are in the nature of court fees and Section 16 of Court Fees Act, 1870 applies, entitling refund upon settlement under Section 89 CPC read with Section 21 of Legal Services Act, 1987
Respondents submitted that claimant is entitled to certificate from referring court to receive full amount of court fees from Collector under Section 21 of Legal Services Act read with Section 89 CPC and Section 16 of Court Fees Act, 1870
Ratio Decidendi
Fees paid under Rule 278(i) of Motor Vehicles Rules, 1991 are in the nature of court fees, and upon settlement of claim petitions through modes under Section 89 CPC, the provisions of Section 21 of Legal Services Act, 1987 and Section 16 of Court Fees Act, 1870 apply to entitle the claimant to a refund of such fees.
Judgment Excerpts
Whether a claimant/s, as the case may be, whose claim petition/s is/are referred, to any one of the modes of settlement of dispute, as per Section 89 of CPC and settled amicably, by one of such mode, should be left high and dry in the matter of refund of fees paid as per Rule 278(i) of the Motor Vehicles Rules, 1991, for want of specific provisions under the said rule ?
It is the stand of the Respondents in the affidavit that the claimant is entitled to a certificate from the Court which has referred the matter to the Lok Adalat to receive the full amount of Court fees from the Collector in terms of Section 21 of the Legal Services Act 1987 read with Section 89 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, and read with Section 16 of the Court Fees Act, 1870.
Procedural History
The Suo Moto Writ Petition was registered on 19.07.2013 based on a submission by the Registrar (Judicial) & Member Secretary of the Goa State Legal Services Authority. The Court issued notice to Respondents on 30.07.2013, and the Respondents filed an affidavit on 22.08.2013. The Court heard the Amicus Curiae and the Advocate General and delivered judgment on 23.10.2013.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 89
- Legal Services Act, 1987: Section 21
- Court Fees Act, 1870: Section 16
- Motor Vehicles Rules, 1991: Rule 278(i)
