IMPORTANT POINT
Appeal as indigent person – A person who is entitled to receive compensation by way of claim before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal can be said to have given up its status as an ‘indigent person’, by virtue of amount slated to be received.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Karol, J.

1. Leave granted.

At the outset, we may remind ourselves of what Krishna Iyer, J. had observed in State of Haryana v. Darshana Devi, (1979) 2 SCC 236 that

“2. The poor shall not be priced out of the Justice market by insistence on court-fee and refusal to apply the exemptive provisions of Order 33, CPC.”

2. The sole point for our consideration is whether a person who is entitled to receive compensation by way of a claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal can be said to have given up its status as an ‘indigent person’, by virtue of the amount slated to be received. In other words, whether a person being an award holder, of monetary compensation without actual receipt thereof, would be disentitled from filing an appeal seeking enhanced compensation as an indigent?

3. The factual scenario giving rise to this appeal is :-

3.1 The appellant, who was the original claimant before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, [Court of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary) & 10th (Adhoc) Addl. District Court Jude, Jamnagar],²[Hereafter, ‘Tribunal’] in M.A.C.P.No.255 of 2011, was injured in an accident on 4th July 2010, while riding pillion on a bike, which was hit by a truck. Having sustained injuries, she was admitted for medical treatment at a hospital for a period of fourteen days and subsequently she underwent plastic surgery.

3.2 At the time of the accident, she was earning Rs.3,000/- per month, but, post the accident, she sustained permanent disablement, and hence had not been able to work thereafter. A claim was filed for Rs.10 lakhs with 18% interest and costs.

3.3 The Tribunal vide Award dated 17th October 2016, awarded a sum of Rs.2,41,745/- with 9% interest from the date of claim petition till the date of realization and proportionate cost(s).

4. Dissatisfied thereby, the claimant-appellant approached the High Court of Gujarat by way of Regular First Appeal No.2611/2017. Misc. Civil Application No.3/2018 was filed therein by which the claimant-appellant prayed for permission to file the said First Appeal as an indigent person.

5. The High Court vide judgment and order dated 7th August, 2018 dismissed the Misc. Civil Application observing as under :

“….3. It is a matter of record that the claimants filed claim petition before the Tribunal and claimed Rs.10,00,000/-, whereby the Tribunal by partly allowing the claim petition vide the impugned award, awarded a sum of Rs,2,41,745/- along with 9% interest from the date of claim petition till its realization.

4. In light of the aforesaid, the applicant– appellant cannot be considered to be indigent person and therefore, he has to pay court fees first.

5. Ms. Rana, learned counsel for the applicant, however, submits that, till date, no amount is received by the applicant. It is open for the applicant to pursue the said remedy before appropriate forum.

In view of the above, present application is not entertained. Time to deposit Court fees is granted for 8 weeks from today.”

(Emphasis supplied)

6. We may refer to this Court’s decision in Mathai M. Paikeday v. C.K. Antony, (2011) 13 SCC 174, wherein the concept of an indigent person has been discussed at length. Relevant extracts are reproduced as follows:-

“16. The concept of indigent person has been discussed in Corpus Juris Secundum (20 CJS Costs § 93) as following:

“§ 93. What constitutes indigency.—The right to sue in forma pauperis is restricted to indigent persons. A person may proceed as poor person only after a court is satisfied that he or she is unable to prosecute the suit and pay the costs and expenses. A person is indigent if the payment of fees would deprive one of basic living expenses, or if the person is in a state of impoverishment that substantially and effectively impairs or prevents the pursuit of a court remedy. However, a person need not be destitute. Factors considered when determining if a litigant is indigent are similar to those considered in criminal cases, and include the party's employment s