9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Challenge against the award of advocate's fee under Motor Vehicles Act. 2. Interpretation of rules regarding fees payable to advocates in the context of the case. 3. Discretionary power of Tribunals in awarding costs and the scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution. Analysis: 1. Challenge against the award of advocate's fee under Motor Vehicles Act: The petitioner, an insurance company, challenged the award of advocate's fee in a Motor Accident Claim case. The Tribunal had awarded compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased, and the petitioner contested the portion of the award related to advocate's fee. The petitioner argued that this aspect of the award could not be challenged under the Motor Vehicles Act. The petitioner contended that only Rule 16, governing fees payable to advocates, should apply, rather than Rule 6 which governs fees for suits for money. The Tribunal had awarded the entire sum claimed by the legal heirs, including advocate's fee, which the petitioner sought to challenge in the original petition. 2. Interpretation of rules regarding fees payable to advocates in the context of the case: The High Court analyzed the rules regarding fees payable to advocates in the context of the case. The petitioner argued that Rule 16, which governs fees in proceedings of an original nature not otherwise provided for, should apply instead of Rule 6, which pertains to suits for money. The Court noted that the rules framed by the High Court regarding fees payable to legal practitioners apply to High Court and subordinate courts, not Tribunals. The Court emphasized that the award of costs, including advocate's fee, is discretionary and not bound by specific rules. The Tribunal had referred to advocate's fee payable in suits by way of analogy and guidance, and the Court found no grounds to challenge the exercise of discretion by the Tribunal in awarding costs in the case. 3. Discretionary power of Tribunals in awarding costs and the scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution: The High Court discussed the discretionary power of Tribunals in awarding costs and the limited scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court highlighted that the award of costs is fully discretionary and depends on various factors, including equity and conduct of parties. The Court emphasized that the exercise of discretionary power in awarding costs is not ordinarily open to review unless it is shown to be perverse or arbitrary. In this case, the Court found that the Tribunal had not acted arbitrarily or unfairly in awarding costs, and there were no grounds for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. The original petition challenging the award of costs was dismissed. In conclusion, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's award of costs, including advocate's fee, in the Motor Accident Claim case, emphasizing the discretionary nature of such awards and the limited scope of judicial review in such matters.
|
