Indigency Was Not Extinguished Even Though She Was Awarded A Sum: SC Allows Woman To File Appeal Against MACT Award As Indigent Person
The Supreme Court allowed a woman to file an appeal as an indigent person, noting that her indigency was not extinguished by the compensation awarded, as she did not receive the money at the time of filing the appeal.
The Bench set aside the order of the Gujarat High Court that denied a motor accident victim (appellant), the right to file an appeal as an indigent person.
Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Sanjay Karol observed, “The ground, upon which the claimant-appellant’s application to file the appeal as an indigent person was rejected, was that she had received compensation by way of the Award of the Tribunal, and therefore, she was not indigent. We find this observation to be belied by the impugned order itself as the learned Single Judge has recorded the submission of the counsel for the claimant appellant that no money stood paid to her at that point in time. So even though she had been awarded a sum, her indigency was not extinguished thereby.”
AOR Aditi Anil Dani represented the appellant, while Advocate Nidhi Sahay appeared for the respondents.
The appellant was injured in a motor accident and subsequently filed a claim with the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) seeking compensation, which was allowed. Dissatisfied with the awarded amount, the appellant filed an appeal before the Gujarat High Court as an indigent person, which would exempt her from paying court fees upfront.
The Gujarat High Court dismissed her application stating that since she was awarded the compensation, she could not be considered indigent. This decision was based on the presumption that the awarded amount negated her indigent status, despite her claim that she had not yet received the money.
The Supreme Court referred to the precedent in State of Haryana v. Darshana Devi [(1979) 2 SCC 236] and reiterated that “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.”
The Court observed that merely being awarded compensation did not equate to receiving it, thus, the appellant’s indigent status remained valid at the time of filing her appeal. It was pointed out that the High Court failed to conduct an inquiry to ascertain the appellant’s financial status as mandated under Order XLIV Rule 3(2) of the CPC
“On both counts, one, that she had not yet received the money and, therefore, at the time of filing the appeal she was arguably indigent; and second, that the statutory requirement under the C.P.C., as described above, was not met – the order of the learned Single Judge has to be set aside,” the Court held.
Consequently, the Bench noted that the intent of Order XXXIII and Order XLIV of the CPC was to ensure that “lack of monetary capability does not preclude a person from knocking on the doors of the Court to seek vindication of his rights.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal.
Cause Title: Alifiya Husenbhai Keshariya v. Siddiq Ismail Sindhi & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 457)
Appearance:
Appellant: AOR Aditi Anil Dani; Advocate Yashas R K
Respondents: AOR Shashank Manish; Advocate Nidhi Sahay