LI Network
Published on: 29 January, 2024 at 14:35 IST
The Kerala High Court has sanctioned the reimbursement of additional fees paid for the Legal Aid Benefit fund under Section 76 of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1949.
The Court emphasized that Section 69A encompasses the additional court fee imposed by Section 76(1) of the Act. Rejecting the idea of withholding the refund for the fund’s constitution, the Court reasoned that if such a denial were to occur, it would defy the logic of Section 69A, making it ineffectual. Despite being designated for the establishment of the legal benefit fund, the nature and character of the additional fee levied mirror that of a court fee.
A solitary judge bench, presided over by Justice C Jayachandran, adjudicated the matter.
The legal query before the Court revolved around the reimbursement of court fees collected for the legal benefit fund. The Principal Munsiff’s Court had previously denied the petitioner’s request for a refund of the legal benefit fund, contending that a settlement had been reached between the parties during mediation.
The petitioner argued that, as the dispute was resolved through mediation, they were entitled to a refund in accordance with Section 69A of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1949.
Section 69A pertains to the refund of the “whole court-fee paid” in the event of a settlement facilitated by Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
While the Court fee was reimbursed, the amount paid for the legal benefit fund was withheld based on the respondent’s assertion that it is not a court fee but an additional court fee intended for collecting funds for legal aid.
The respondent relied on Section 76, which outlines the legal benefit fund of the Act, arguing that the legal benefit fund is considered an ‘additional court fee’ and is therefore governed by Section 69A of the Act.
Upon considering the plea, the court noted that sub-section (1) of Section 76 refers to ‘additional court fee’ without explicitly mentioning the ‘legal benefit fund.’
It observed that sub-section (2) referred to the legal benefit fund, to which the additional court fee collected under sub-section (1) had to be credited.
The Court concluded that merely because the amount collected under sub-section (1) has a different character does not negate its status as a court fee, the entire amount of which is refundable under Section 69A.
The Court further declared that “Section 69A covers the additional court fee levied under Section 76(1) of the Act.” Consequently, the bench directed the Munsiff Court to refund the additional court fee collected under Section 76(1).
