Read Time: 12 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has allowed a woman to file appeal against an order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal as an indigent person as the High Court erred in holding she was no more poor after having received the award, though no money was paid to her.

A bench of Justices J K Maheshwari and Sanjay Karol directed the Gujarat High Court to decide the appeal filed by the appellant preferably within a period of six months, as it failed to consider at the time of filing appeal, the appellant was indigent person and the statutory requirement under the Civil Procedure Code was not met in rejecting her plea.

"It would have been ideal for us to have remanded the matter to the High Court for an inquiry to be conducted by its orders in accordance with Order XLIV, however, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, keeping in view that considerable time has passed since the impugned order in the First Appeal, we grant liberty to the appellant to appeal as an indigent person observing that, at the relevant time, her application ought to have been looked into, verified and then ordered upon, which was not done," the bench said.

High Court in its judgment dated August 7, 2018 held the appellant could not be considered as an indigent person since she had been given an award of Rs 2,41,745, therefore, she had to deposit court fees first.

The question before the court was whether a person who is entitled to receive compensation by way of a claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal can be said to have given up its status as an ‘indigent person’, by virtue of the amount slated to be received. 

In other words, whether 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 court noted.

"It is unquestioned that a person dissatisfied with the amount of compensation received can file an appeal..In the present case, for a claim of Rs 10 lakhs, the Tribunal awarded compensation which was less than Rs 2.5 lakhs. Without commenting on the merits of the matter, we recognise the desire of the claimant-appellant to file an appeal," the bench said.

The appellant, a pillion rider on a bike, was hit by a truck resulting into injuries and permanent disablement to her. The tribunal awarded her a sum of Rs 2,41,745 with 9% interest from the date of claim petition till the date of realisation and proportionate cost.

The bench pointed out the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 provided for mechanism by which a person who is indigent may file a suit or an appeal. It noted Order XXXIII thereof pertains to filing of suits and Order XLIV deals with appeals by such persons.

"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," the bench said.

The court cited the observations made by Krishna Iyer, J in State of Haryana Vs Darshana Devi (1979) 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 bench noted 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 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. Any which way, in our considered view, the High Court was incorrect in rejecting the Misc. Application," the bench said.

The bench noted a further ground on which the High Court erred in not allowing the claimant-appellant to file the appeal.

"The language used in Orders XXXIII and XLIV so far as deferring of payment of court fees is concerned, as was observed in Union Bank of India Vs Khader International (2001), that if the suit so filed, as an indigent person succeeds, the Court fee shall be deductible from the amount received as a result thereof as if the person who files the suit is not an indigent," the bench said.

The court also pointed out Order XLIV Rule 3(2) provides for conducting inquiry as to whether the applicant is indigent person.

In the case, the bench noted the Appellate Court, in accordance with the CPC, did not conduct any inquiry, which was necessitated since nothing on record speaks of the claimant-appellant having filed the claim before the Tribunal as an indigent person, in which case she would be covered under Rule 3(1). This provision provides that no further inquiry would be required in respect of a person who was allowed to sue or appeal as an indigent person if they make an affidavit to the effect that they have not ceased to be an indigent unless the Government pleader objects or disputes such claim in which case an inquiry shall be held by the Appellate Court or under the orders thereof.

"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 CPC, was not met – the order of the Single Judge has to be set aside," the bench said.

The court thus allowed the appeal and directed its registry to immediately transmit the order to the Registrar General Gujarat High Court for necessary follow up action.