Alifiya Husenbhai Keshariya vs. Siddiq Ismail Sindhi & Ors.

 

        A Division Bench of the supreme Court of India, comprising of Justices J.K Maheshwari and Sanjay Karol delivered a judgment on the issue that whether a person who is entitled to receive compensation before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal can be said to have given up its status as indigent person by virtue of the amount stated to be received.

          Fact of the case in initio is that the Appellant, who earned only Rs. 3000/- per month was hit by a truck while riding pillion on a bike in 2010. She sustained injuries and admitted in a hospital and subsequently underwent plastic surgery. She sustained permanent disablement and hence had not been able to work thereafter.

                                              

        She  filed claim suit before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal for Rs. 10 lakhs with 18% interest and costs. The Tribunal 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) in the year 2016.

        Dissatisfied with the amount awarded, the claimant approached the High Court of Gujarat by way of Regular First Appeal and also filed Miscellaneous Civil Application for permission to file the First Appeal as an indigent person. The High Court dismissed the Miscellaneous Application with observation that the Tribunal already awarded the amount along with interest till its realization, so the applicant cannot be considered to be indigent person and therefore she has to pay Court fees first.

          So, being aggrieved with the impugned order and judgment of dismissal of application, the applicant approached the Supreme Court for redress i.e to file First Appeal as an indigent person.

          Before allowing the petition, the Court held the judgment and order of the High Court as incorrect in rejecting the Miscellaneous Application merely on the ground that she had received compensation by way of Award of the Tribunal and therefore, she was  not indigent.

        The Hon’ble Court further noticed the error committed by High Court by not allowing the claimant/appellant to file appeal. The Court viewed taking reliance from the case Union of India vs. Khader International Construction & Ors ((2001) that if the suit so filed, as an indigent person succeeds, the Court fee shall be deductible from the amount received as if the person who files the suit is not an indigent.

        The top Court referred to the decision of Mathai  M. Paikday vs C.K Antony (2011) wherein the Court had discussed the concept of indigent person.

        It said – “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 of prevents the pursuit of a Court remedy”.

          The Court also discussed the following factors to determine whether the litigant is indigent or not –

1.       the party’s employment status and income including income from government sources such as social security and unemployment benefit;

2.       the ownership of unencumbered assets including real or personal property and money on deposit;

3        the party’s total indebtedness; and

4.       any financial assistance of such persons

         

          The payment of Court fees is merely differed and not altogether wiped off – Court reiterated following the judgment in the case of R.V Dev vs. Chief Secretar, Govt. of Kerala (2007)  which held that a person who is permitted to sue as an indigent person is liable to pay the Court fees which would have been paid by him if he was not permitted to sue in that capacity, if he fails in the suit at the trial or without trial.

          The intent of the provision of Orders XXXIII and XLIV of CPC is to exemplify the cherished principle that lack of monetary capability does not preclude a person from knocking on the doors of the Court to seek vindication of his rights – Court said.         

          Therefore, emphasizing on the case State of Haryana vs. Darshana Devi (1979)  wherein Justice Krishna Iyer had observed “ 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”.

          In instant case, Supreme Court said even though appellant had been awarded a sum, her indigency was not extinguished thereby. So Court allowed the application of the appellant to file appeal before the High Court  and requested to decide the appeal expeditiously within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the copy of judgment. 

 

Case: Alifiya Husenbhai Keshariya vs. Siddiq Ismail Sindhi & Ors.

Date of Judgment: 27 May ‘2024