Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(SC) 8894
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ALIFIYA HUSENBHAI KESHARIYA – Appellant
Versus
SIDDIQ ISMAIL SINDHI – Respondent
C.A. No.-006682-006682 - 2024
A claimant's status as an indigent person is not extinguished by an award of compensation that has not yet been received, allowing them to appeal without paying court fees.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Orders XXXIII and XLIV - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 173 - Indigent person status - The court examined whether a claimant entitled to compensation can still be considered indigent despite being awarded a sum not yet received. The High Court's dismissal of the application to appeal as an indigent person was found erroneous as the claimant had not received the awarded amount, thus maintaining her indigent status. (Paras 1, 2, 15, 19)
(B) Access to Justice - The court emphasized that the right to access justice should not be hindered by court fees, especially for those who have not received compensation. The court reiterated the principle that the lack of monetary capability should not preclude a person from seeking legal remedies. (Paras 11, 13)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was injured in a motorcycle accident and awarded compensation by the Tribunal, which she had not yet received. She sought to appeal as an indigent person after her application was dismissed by the High Court.
Findings of Court:
The High Court's rejection of the application was set aside, allowing the appellant to appeal as an indigent person.
Issues: The main issue was whether the claimant's status as an indigent person was extinguished by the award of compensation not yet received.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the claimant's indigent status remained intact as she had not received the compensation, and the High Court erred in its assessment.
Result: The appeal was allowed, and the High Court was directed to expedite the appeal process.
1. Leave granted. At the outset, we may remind ourselves of what Krishna Iyer, J. had observed in State of Haryana v. Darshana Devi1 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 1 (1979) 2 SCC 236 Digitally signed by Deepak Singh Date: 2024.05.27 14:47:52 IST Reason:
- Signature Not Verified 2 | SLP(C)No.729/2020 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 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 2 Hereafter, ‘Tribunal’ 3 | SLP(C)No.729/2020 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 4 | SLP(C)No.729/2020 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. Antony3, 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 w
