Benefit of Probation Must Be Considered Where Statutorily Permissible: Supreme Court Flags Omission as Legal Error in Cruelty Conviction Under Section 498A IPC How Can You Be Blamed for What Happened Before You Joined?”: Supreme Court Slams Criminal Case Against HDFC Manager for Auction Held Before His Tenure Disciplinary Authority Cannot Punish Without Proof, Witnesses, or Furnishing of Enquiry Report: Supreme Court Quashes Punishment Imposed After Retirement “You Can't Disguise a Suit for Cancellation as One for Possession Just to Beat the Clock”: Supreme Court Slams Time-Barred Property Claim If the Prosecutrix Herself Is Confused About the Date, Can Rape Be Presumed?: Supreme Court Refuses to Interfere with Acquittal in Rape and Abduction Case Indian Courts Cannot Be a Safe Haven for Parental Abduction: Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders Repatriation of Minor to Canada Quashing of Predicate Offence Does Not Automatically Nullify PMLA Prosecution: Telangana High Court Refuses to Discharge Accused in ₹50 Crore Money Laundering Case No Double Compensation: Land Valuation Already Embedded in Tree Yield When Income Capitalization Method Is Applied: Bombay High Court Clarifies Compensation Norms in Orchard Acquisition Social Security Ceilings Cannot Be Mistaken for Actual Earnings: Delhi High Court Dismisses Review Petition in Motor Accident Compensation Dispute Quashes Banashankari VI Stage Land Acquisition Over Arbitrary, Discriminatory Action: Karnataka HC Tears Into BDA Order XXXIX Rule 2A is Not Intrinsically Punitive but Aimed at Ensuring Compliance: Kerala High Court Explains Scope of Civil Contempt Powers Possession Began with Purpose, Matured into Lawful Ownership — Defendant’s Sale Was Built on Nothing: MP High Court Declares Heir Bhumiswami, Voids Sale by Stranger to Title Refundable Security Deposit Not a ‘Money Advance’: Orissa High Court Slams Wrongful Stamp Duty Demand, Orders Refund Sword of Prosecution Hanging for Ten Years Without Sanction Cannot Be Sustained: Patna High Court Quashes Cognizance Against IPS Officers in Protest Assault Case Dispute About Mutation of Land is Not a Matter in Rem But in Personam – Arbitrator Has Full Jurisdiction: Punjab & Haryana High Court Guilt of Medical Negligence Cannot Be Made Out Merely by Allegation Without Expert Evidence: Supreme Court Partially Modifies NCDRC Order in Hospital Liability Case “There Is No Presumption That Property Remains Joint After Partition” – Supreme Court Restores Validity of Sale by Coparcener Holding Self-Acquired Property Fresh Suit Maintainable Even After Rejection of Restoration Application Under Order IX Rule 4 CPC:  Supreme Court Upholds High Court’s Decree Restoring Plaintiffs' Rights Academic Futures Can’t Be Sacrificed at the Altar of Lease Formalities: Supreme Court Invokes Article 142 to Save Hotel Management Institute Disregarding a Court's Order May Seem Bold, But the Shadows of Its Consequences Are Long and Cold: Supreme Court Sentences Shaji Augustine for Civil Contempt States Must Act to Eliminate Gender Disparities and Ensure Transparency in Organ Transplants: Supreme Court Issues Comprehensive Directions

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 News