LexALIFIYA HUSENBHAI KESHARIYA versus SIDDIQ ISMAIL SINDHI & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
* Author [2024] 5 S.C.R. 896 : 2024 INSC 457 Alifiya Husenbhai Keshariya v. Siddiq Ismail Sindhi & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 6682 of 2024) 27 May 2024 [J.K. Maheshwari and Sanjay Karol,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration 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. Headnotes Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 – s.173 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or. XXXIII and Or. XLIV – Appellant-original claimant was injured in an accident – She filed a claim of Rs. 10 lakhs before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – The Tribunal vide award dated 17.10.2016 awarded a sum of Rs. 2,41,745/- – Dissatisfied, the appellant-claimant approached the High Court and filed a Misc. Application for permission to file the said First Appeal as an indigent person – The said application was dismissed by the High Court as the Claim Tribunal had partly allowed the claim petition of appellant and awarded a sum of Rs. 2,41,745/- – In the light of the same, the High Court observed that appellant cannot be considered an indigent person – Correctness: Held: 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 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 – This observation to be belied by the impugned order itself as the Single Judge of the High Court 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 [2024] 5 S.C.R. 897 Alifiya Husenbhai Keshariya v. Siddiq Ismail Sindhi & Ors. indigency was not extinguished thereby – In considered view of this Court, the High Court was incorrect in rejecting the Misc. Application – Also, the Appellate Court, in accordance with the Order XLIV Rule 3(2), did not conduct any inquiry – The same 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), which 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 – Therefore 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, was not met – the order of the Single Judge of the High Court has to be set aside. [Paras 11, 15, 17, 18] Case Law Cited State of Haryana v. Darshana Devi [1979] 3 SCR 184 : (1979) 2 SCC 236; Mathai M. Paikeday v. C.K. Antony [2011] 7 SCR 230 : (2011) 13 SCC 174; R.V. Dev v. Chief Secretary, Govt. of Kerala [2007] 6 SCR 886 : (2007) 5 SCC 698; Union Bank of India v. Khader International Construction & Ors. [2001] 3 SCR 580 : (2001) 5 SCC 22 – relied on. List of Acts Motor Vehicle Act, 1988; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. List of Keywords Award; Monetary compensation without actual receipt; Indigent person; Filing of appeal as an indigent; Order XLIV Rule 3(1) and Rule 3(2) of CPC. Case Arising From CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6682 of 2024 From the Judgment and Order dated 07.08.2018 of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in MCA No. 3 of 2018 898 [2024] 5 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports Appearances for Parties Ms. Aditi Anil Dani, Yashas R K, Advs. for the Appellant. Ms. Nidhi Sahay, Shashank Manish, Advs. for the Respondents. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment Sanjay Karol J., 1. Leave granted. At the outset, we may remind ourselves of what Krishna Iyer, J. had observed in State of Haryana v. Darshana Devi1 that “2. 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.” 2. Th
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.