Can A Person, Awarded Monetary Compensation But Has Not Received It, File Appeal As Indigent? Supreme Court Answers
The Supreme Court, in its recent judgment (on May 27), answered the question of whether a person, who has been awarded monetary compensation but has not received it, would not be able to file an appeal seeking enhanced compensation as an indigent. An indigent person is someone who does not have the financial means to pay the Court fee and proceed with the suit filed. At the outset, the...
The Supreme Court, in its recent judgment (on May 27), answered the question of whether a person, who has been awarded monetary compensation but has not received it, would not be able to file an appeal seeking enhanced compensation as an indigent. An indigent person is someone who does not have the financial means to pay the Court fee and proceed with the suit filed.
At the outset, the Bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Sanjay Karol referred to Order XXXIII (Suits by indigent persons) and Order XLIV (appeals by indigent persons) of the CPC, 1908 and observed that these provisions “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, thereafter, also observed that even though the original claimant/ appellant was awarded money, no money was paid to her. Thus, her indigency was not extinguished.
The factual matrix of the present case is such that the appellant got injured in an accident and subsequently, approached the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for compensation. Contending that she had sustained permanent disablement, she had filed a claim of Rs. 10 Lakhs. However, the Tribunal awarded her around Rs. 2 Lakhs.
Aggrieved by this, she filed an appeal in the High Court along with an application seeking permission to file the appeal as an indigent person. However, the Court refused to entertain the same after noting that the claimant had been awarded the aforesaid compensation. Importantly, at the same time, the Court also acknowledged, in its order, that no amount has been received by her yet. Against this backdrop, the matter came before the Supreme Court.
The Court referred to a thread of precedents, including Union Bank of India v. Khader International Construction & Ors., (2001) 5 SCC 22. Therein, it was noted that if the suit is decreed for the plaintiff, the court fee would be calculated as if the plaintiff had not originally filed the suit as an indigent person.
“…So there is only a provision for the deferred payment of the court fees and this benevolent provision is intended to help the poor litigants who are unable to pay the requisite court fee to file a suit because of their poverty.,” the Court added.
Taking a cue from this, the Bench opined that the High Court was incorrect in dismissing the above mentioned application even after recording that she has not received the compensation.
“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 Court said.
Apart from this, the Court also referred to Order XLIV Rule 3(2) (Inquiry as to whether applicant is an indigent person). However, the Court observed that no inquiry was conducted even though the same was required, considering that the claimant had initially not approached the tribunal as an indigent person.
“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 C.P.C., as described above, was not met – the order of the learned Single Judge has to be set aside.,” the Court concluded.
However, instead of remanding the matter back to the High Court, the Court allowed the appellant to file the appeal as an indigent person. This was in view of the fact that a considerable time has lapsed. The Court also requested the High Court to decide the appeal within a period of six months.
Case Title: ALIFIYA HUSENBHAI KESHARIYA v. SIDDIQ ISMAIL SINDHI & ORS.,
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 414