'Pedantic Literalism': Kerala High Court Directs Tribunal Not To Insist On Separate Petitions For Exempting Court Fees & Legal Benefit Fund

The plea before Justice Mohammed Nias C.P. was preferred by a person claiming around Rs. 15 lakhs for an injury sustained in a motor accident.

He filed a claim petition before the Tribunal along with interim applications seeking exemption from the court fees and LBF. However, the Tribunal rejected the claim petition after finding that two separate petitions were not filed for exemption of payment of fees. Aggrieved, he has come before the High Court.

The petitioner submitted that there is no statutory requirement or any direction that mandates separate petitions. It was also told to the Court that though an RTI application was filed asking if separate petitions were required, the Tribunal had not disclosed any provision for supporting such a requirement.

Further, it was submitted that LBF is only an additional court fee as per Section 4A of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 and the insistence of separate petitions for exemption is a needless technicality, contrary to the speedy process envisaged under the Motor Vehicles Act.

Agreeing with the petitioner, the Court found that there was no ground for the Tribunal to insist on separate petitions. It opined that this was contrary to the scheme of the Motor Vehicles Act.

It observed:

“There is no Rule, provision, or practice mandating bifurcated applications for such exemptions. Rule 397(2) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 expressly enables the Tribunal to exempt payment of the prescribed fee at the initial stage, with liberty to realise the same from the award…Resultantly, 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.”

Relying on the precedents set under Francis Cletus v. Koppara Kunhimon (2024 KHC Online 10110) and Shree Dhanwantri Chits India Private Limited v. Babu (2024 (1) KHC 415), it was remarked that LBF is in essence an additional court fee and the merely specification of purpose for utilization of the same would not change its character.

The Court then called for the need to give beneficial interpretation to social welfare statutes:

“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.…Courts cannot remain indifferent to the constitutional mandate of social justice, nor can they permit pedantic literalism or so-called "semantic luxuries" to frustrate the realisation of welfare objectives embodied in what are essentially "bread and butter" statutes.”

The Court thus directed the Tribunal to number the petitioner's claim petition. It also gave a direction to the Registry to intimate the judgment to all Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals.

Case No: OP (MAC) No. 107 of 2023

Case Title: Joseph T.J. v. Alex Abraham and Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 843

Counsel for the petitioners: Rahul Sasi, Neethu Prem, Archana Vinod

Counsel for the respondents: P. Vishnu Prasad, George A. Cherian – Standing Counsel

Click to Read/Download Judgment