Skip to content


Harbans Kaur and ors. Vs. the State of Haryana and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectInsurance;Motor Vehicles
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in1(1985)ACC256
AppellantHarbans Kaur and ors.
RespondentThe State of Haryana and anr.
Excerpt:
.....refusal to enter into a contract is contrary to statutory provisions or public duty, judicial review of such state action is inevitable. likewise, if state enters into a contract in consonance with article 299 rights of the parties shall be determined by terms of such contract irrespective of fact that one of the parties to it is a state or a statutory authority. for these precise reasons the equitable doctrine of promissory estoppel has been made applicable against the government, as against any other private individual, even in cases where no valid contract in terms of article 299 was entered into between the parties. hence, if government makes a representation or a promise and an individual alters his position by acting upon such promise, the government may be required to make good..........by them or on whom they depended. besides this, the notification is quite clear inasmuch as no court-fee is leviable on an application under section 110-a of the act and as no court fee has been paid on the applications (may be under the orders of the court) no court-fee in view of the notification, referred to above, is leviable as these cases squarely fall within the ambit of the substituted rule. this view which we are taking would be furthering the just cause for which this notification has been issued.2. consequently, we allow this petition and direct that no court fee under the old rule would be leviable on the claim petition filed by the petitioners, before the accident claims tribunal. it may further be clarified that in those cases where the amount of compensation has.....
Judgment:

Prem Chand Jain, Ag. C. J.

1. In this petition, we are sorry to note that the State Government of Haryana has chosen to lose the grace which it had shown in issuing Notification No. G.S.R. 83/ C.A. 4/39/ Section 111-A/84, dated 18th December, 1984, which reads as follows :

22. Fees.--No Court fee stamps shall be leviable on an application under Sub-section (1) of Section 110-A of this Act, for payment of compensation.

The learned Advocate General appearing for the State, however, now seeks to contend that in spite of this notification, the petitions under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) which are pending and on which the Court fee has not been paid so far under the orders of this Court, Court-fee would have to be paid in the light of the old rule. We see no merit in this stand of the learned Advocate General. The whole purpose behind this notification appears to be to help the cause of justice in making it available at a lesser cost at least to those who cry to be compensated for the loss suffered by them or on whom they depended. Besides this, the notification is quite clear inasmuch as no Court-fee is leviable on an application under Section 110-A of the Act and as no Court fee has been paid on the applications (may be under the orders of the Court) no Court-fee in view of the notification, referred to above, is leviable as these cases squarely fall within the ambit of the substituted rule. This view which we are taking would be furthering the just cause for which this notification has been issued.

2. Consequently, we allow this petition and direct that no Court fee under the old rule would be leviable on the claim petition filed by the petitioners, before the Accident Claims Tribunal. It may further be clarified that in those cases where the amount of compensation has been withheld towards the payment of Court fee, then that amount shall be paid in accordance with law to the claimants.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //