Kerala High Court Urges Tribunals To Not Insist On Separate Petitions For Exempting Court Fees And Legal Benefits Fund

The Kerala High Court has urged the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal to number a Claim Petition without insisting on separate Petitions for exemption from payment of court fees and legal benefit fund.

The Court was considering a Petition claiming compensation for the injury sustained in the accident along with an I.A. seeking exemption from payment of the Court fee and an Additional Court Fee (LBF) exemption petition.

The Bench of Justice Mohammed Nias C.P. held, "...the Tribunals cannot insist on filing two applications. The Tribunal, being a special forum created under beneficial legislation, is required to ensure a simplified and speedy process for accident victims. Introducing technical conditions not contemplated by statute frustrates the very purpose of the Motor Vehicles Act and prejudices injured claimants. The refusal to number Ext. P1, for want of two separate applications, is thus contrary to the scheme governing MACT proceedings."

The Petitioner was represented Advocate Rahul Sasi, while the Respondent was represented by Advocate P. Vishnu Prasad.

It was submitted that there exists no statutory requirement, Rule, Circular or direction mandating the filing of two separate petitions. 

It was further submitted that despite an RTI Application filed by the Counsel of the Original Petition on an earlier occasion as to whether separate Petitions are required, the Tribunal failed to disclose any provision supporting such a requirement, which itself demonstrates that the insistence on two separate petitions is unsustainable and without legal foundation. 

The Counsel contended that the Legal Benefit Fund is only an additional court fee under Section 4A of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959, read with Rule 397 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, and that exemption from both can be sought through a Single Petition.

It was urged that the Tribunal’s insistence on two separate Applications is a needless technicality and contrary to the simplified, speedy process contemplated for claims under the Motor Vehicles Act and the refusal to even number the petition causes serious prejudice to an accident victim and defeats the beneficial object of the legislation.

The Court stressed that in matters of social justice adjudication, the courts must further ensure that access to justice remains litigant-centric, transparent, and unencumbered by unwarranted procedural impediments. 

"...Procedural barriers and technical requirements that are not contemplated by the statute cannot be allowed to defeat substantive rights. Where a conflict arises between substantive justice and hyper-technicalities, the former must necessarily prevail...The raison d'être of law and of courts is to secure finality and effective resolution of disputes. Any approach that encourages multiplicity of proceedings and needless prolongation of litigation strikes at the very heart of this foundational principle and cannot be countenanced....", the Court observed.

The Petition was accordingly allowed.

Cause Title: Joseph T J. v. Alex Abraham (2025:KER:95037)

Appearances:

Appellent- Advocates Rahul Sasi, Neethu Prem and Archana Vinod

Respondent- Advocate P. Vishnu Prasad and Standing Counsel George A. Cherian

Click here to read/ download Order