MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

Supreme Court Grants Indigent Status to Accident Victim for Appeal, Emphasizes Actual Receipt of Compensation in Determining Poverty

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Supreme Court has set aside the Gujarat High Court's decision to deny indigent status to a claimant seeking to file an appeal for enhanced compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT). The judgment, delivered by a bench comprising Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Sanjay Karol, emphasized that the actual receipt of the compensation amount is essential for determining indigency status, thereby ensuring access to justice is not precluded by lack of monetary capability.

The Supreme Court underscored the necessity of actual receipt of the awarded compensation in determining indigency status. "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," the bench noted. This principle was crucial in ensuring that lack of financial resources does not obstruct access to justice.

The Supreme Court observed that the High Court had erred in dismissing the appellant's application without conducting the necessary inquiry to verify her indigency status. Justice Sanjay Karol stated, "The language used in Orders XXXIII and XLIV of the Code of Civil Procedure clearly indicates that the deferment of court fees is intended to help poor litigants unable to pay the requisite court fee due to their poverty."

The judgment elaborated on the principles of evaluating indigency in the context of filing appeals. The Court reiterated that the statutory requirements under Order XLIV, Rule 3(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure must be met, which includes conducting an inquiry into the claimant's financial status. "The High Court was incorrect in rejecting the Misc. Application without adhering to the procedural requirements set out in the Code," the judgment stated.

Justice Sanjay Karol remarked, "The intent of Orders XXXIII and XLIV is unmistakable. They 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."

By allowing the appeal and granting the appellant permission to file as an indigent person, the Supreme Court reinforced the principle that access to justice must not be denied due to financial incapability. The Court requested the High Court to expedite the disposal of the appeal within six months, highlighting the importance of timely justice. This decision not only rectifies the immediate grievance of the appellant but also sets a significant precedent for similar cases, ensuring that the judiciary remains accessible to all, regardless of financial status.

ALIFIYA HUSENBHAI KESHARIYA v. SIDDIQ ISMAIL SINDHI & ORS.

Date of Decision: May 27, 2024

 

Latest Legal News