Insurance Claimant Can Restrict Claim Amount To Pay Lesser Court Fees U/S 166 Of Motor Vehicles Act: Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court has held that a claimant can restrict the claim amount while filing an appeal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act to avail the benefit of lower court fees at the initial stage, without being compelled to pay court fees on the full amount claimed in the original proceedings. Justice Shailesh P. Brahme was hearing an appeal filed challenging the award passed...
The Bombay High Court has held that a claimant can restrict the claim amount while filing an appeal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act to avail the benefit of lower court fees at the initial stage, without being compelled to pay court fees on the full amount claimed in the original proceedings.
Justice Shailesh P. Brahme was hearing an appeal filed challenging the award passed by the claims tribunal passed U/Sec. 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The appellant had initially claimed Rs. 40 Lakhs as compensation for the accident, and was granted Rs. 5.5 Lakhs by the tribunal. Being aggrieved by the award and for the enhancement of compensation, he preferred an appeal, valuing the claim at Rs. 1,00,000/- for the purpose of Court fees.
The appellants contended that Section 7(2) of the Maharashtra Court Fees Act permits the Appellant to restrict the claim to a particular amount, and if he succeeds in the appeal, then he/she has to make good the deficit court fees.
The Court examined Section 7 of the Bombay Court Fees Act, noting that the legislative scheme intended to provide claimants, other than owners or insurers, relief from paying full court fees upfront.
“… there is no difficulty to comprehend that Appellants who are preferring appeal in the Motor Vehicle Act have the choice to restrict their relief to a particular claim quoted in the memorandum of the appeal. In the teeth of express provision, it is not possible to accept any other interpretation,” the court observed.
The Court observed that there is no provision either in the Motor Vehicle Act or in the Maharashtra Court Fees Act to indicate that it is not permissible to restrict the claim for the purpose of Court fees. The Court noted that the concession being granted is not in perpetuity, and if the appellants succeed in the appeal, they will have to pay the balance fees.
The Court further held that there is no difference in a complete or partial rejection of the claim. It observed:
“… there can be no difference in the appeal preferred by Claimant against complete rejection of his claim and partial rejection of his claim. In both circumstances, the Appellant is entitled to restrict the relief to a particular value for payment of Court fees.”
Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeal, quashing the impugned orders.
Case Title: Shivshankar v. Sanjay & Ors. [CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 106 OF 2025]