Even 1.5 Years in Jail Doesn’t Dilute Section 37 NDPS Rigour: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail in 710 Kg Poppy Husk Case Stay of Conviction Nullifies Disqualification Under Section 8(3) RP Act: Allahabad High Court Dismisses Quo Warranto Against Rahul Gandhi Custodial Interrogation Necessary to Uncover ₹2 Crore MGNREGA Scam: Kerala High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail for Vendors in Corruption Case Order 41 Rule 23 CPC | Trial Court Cannot Decide Title Solely on a Vacated Judgment: Himachal Pradesh High Court Strikes By Bar Associations Cannot Stall Justice: Allahabad High Court Holds Office Bearers Liable for Contempt if Revenue Suits Are Delayed Due to Boycotts To Constitute a Service PE, Services Must Be Furnished Within India Through Employees Present in India: Delhi High Court Medical Negligence | State Liable for Loss of Vision in Botched Cataract Surgeries: Gauhati High Court Awards Compensation Waiver of Right Under Section 50 NDPS is Valid Even Without Panch Signatures: Bombay High Court Agricultural Land Is 'Property' Under Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act, 1937: A.P. High Court Tenant Who Pays Rent After Verifying Landlord’s Will Cannot Dispute His Title Under Section 116 Evidence Act: Himachal Pradesh High Court Dismisses Eviction Challenge by HP State Cooperative Bank Clever Drafting Cannot Override Limitation Bar: Gujarat High Court Rejects Suit for Specific Performance Once Divorce by Mutual Consent Is Final, Wife Cannot Pursue Criminal Case for Stridhan Without Reserving Right to Do So: Himachal Pradesh High Court Caste-Based Insults Must Show Intent – Mere Abuse Not Enough for Atrocities Act: Gujarat High Court Upholds Acquittal Failure to Inform Detenu of Right to Represent to Detaining Authority Vitiates NSA Detention: Gauhati High Court Awarding Further Interest On Penal Charges Is Contrary To Fundamental Policy Of Indian Arbitration Law: Bombay High Court

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