The Supreme Court has recently ruled that a person who is entitled to receive compensation by way of a claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cannot be said to have given up his status as an ‘Indigent person’, by virtue of the amount slated to be received.
A division bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Aravind Kumar allowed the appeal against Gujarat High Court denying the appellant permission to seek enhancement of compensation amount as awarded by the MACT.
Brief Facts of the Case
The appellant was hit by a truck and injured while riding a pillion on a bike. She was earning Rs. 3,000 per month at the time of the accident but after it she was unable to work as she sustained permanent disablement. She filed a claim for Rs. 10 lakhs with 18% interest and costs.
The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal awarded her Rs. 2,41,745 with 9% interest. Dissatisfied by the same the appellant prayed the High Court of Gujarat for permission to file the said appeal as an indigent person. The High Court rejected the same stating that since the appellant has been awarded money by the Tribunal she cannot be considered as an indigent person.
The instant appeal deals with the question of 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.
Observations of the Court
The Court at the outset looked at the case of Mathai M. Paikeday Vs. C.K. Antony wherein the concept of an indigent person was discussed in detail. The court observed that the ground upon which the claimant's application to file the appeal as an indigent person was rejected is contradictory to the impugned order as it was recorded in the submission of the counsel for the claimant that no money was paid to her at that point of time.
The Court further stated that the High Court was incorrect in rejecting the application as even though she had been awarded the money, no money stood paid to her. Hence, her indigency was not extinguished.
The operation of Order 33 which pertains to filing of suits and Order 64 which deals with appeals by indigent persons has been noted by the Court in R.V. Dev v. Chief Secretary, Govt. of Kerala where it says that if a person who is permitted to sue as an indigent person fails in the suit at the trial or without trial then he/she will be liable to pay the court fees as the fees is merely deferred and not altogether wiped off. The court further noted that the intent of these orders is unmistakable as they exemplify that lack of monetary capability does not preclude a person from knocking on the doors of the court to see vindication of his rights.
Subsequently, according to the language used in Orders 33 and 64 of CPC in reference to the deference of payment of court fees and as observed in Union Bank of India v. Khader International Construction if the suit filed as an indigent person succeeds the Court fee shall be deductible from the amount received. Therefore, the statutory requirement under CPC was not met.
The Court further noted that no inquiry was conducted by the Appellate Court according to Order 64 Rule 3(2) of CPC. The same was necessitated as there is no record that the appellant filed the claim before the tribunal as an indigent person in which case she would be covered under Rule 3(1).
The Court noted that the order of the learned Single Judge has to be set aside on two counts. One, that she had not yet received the money and therefore, at the time of filing the appeal she was arguably indigent. Second, the statutory requirement under CPC as described above was not met.
Decision of the Court
Concerning the aforementioned reasons the Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and order of the learned Single Judge. Due to the peculiar facts of the case and that considerable time has passed since the impugned order the court granted the appellant the liberty to appeal as an indigent person.
It further requested the High Court to decide the matter expeditiously and preferably within six months from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment.
Case Title: Alifiya Husenbhai Keshariya Vs. Siddiq Ismail Sindhi & Ors., 2024 Latest Caselaw 366 SC
Case Details: Civil Appeal, Arising out of SLP(C)No.729/2020
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aravind Kumar
Citation: 2024 Latest Caselaw 366 SC
Advocates for Petitioner: Anish Kumar Gupta
Advocates for Respondent:
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
