Case title : ALIFIYA HUSENBHAI KESHARIYA v. SIDDIQ ISMAIL SINDHI & ORS.
Case number : CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2024 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.729/2020)
Dated on :2024 INSC 457
Quorum : SANJAY KAROL J.
FACTS OF THE CASE
Alifiya Husenbhai Keshariya, the appellant, was involved in a road accident on July 4, 2010, sustaining injuries while riding pillion on a bike hit by a truck. Following the accident, she underwent medical treatment, including plastic surgery, and became permanently disabled, rendering her unable to work. She filed a claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal seeking compensation. Prior to the accident, Alifiya was earning Rs. 3,000 per month. Her claim before the Tribunal was for Rs. 10 lakhs, plus 18% interest and costs, due to the injuries sustained and the resulting permanent disability that prevented her from working.
On October 17, 2016, the Tribunal awarded Alifiya a sum of Rs. 2,41,745/- with 9% interest from the date of the claim petition till the realisation, along with proportionate costs. This amount was significantly less than the claimed Rs. 10 lakhs. Dissatisfied with the Tribunal’s award, Alifiya filed a Regular First Appeal before the High Court of Gujarat, seeking enhanced compensation. In support of her appeal, Alifiya filed a Misc. Civil Application praying for permission to file the appeal as an indigent person, citing her financial inability to pay court fees. However, the High Court rejected her application on August 7, 2018, stating that since she had been awarded compensation by the Tribunal, she could not be considered an indigent person and must pay court fees. Alifiya appealed this decision to the Supreme Court of India, arguing that she had not received the awarded compensation at the time of filing the appeal and should be considered an indigent person eligible for relief from court fees.
ISSUES
- Does Alifiya Husenbhai Keshariya qualify as an ‘indigent person’ exempt from court fees when filing an appeal, especially considering she hadn’t received the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at the time of filing?
- Should financial limitations hinder individuals, particularly those injured and disabled, from seeking legal recourse and appealing judgments, thereby raising questions about equitable access to justice?
- Is there a correct understanding and application of procedural rules, particularly those in the Code of Civil Procedure, regarding the eligibility and consequences of filing appeals as an indigent person, particularly in cases involving personal injury compensation?
LEGAL PROVISIONS
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC):
- Order XXXIII: Pertains to suits filed by indigent persons.
- Order XLIV: Deals with appeals filed by indigent persons.
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act):
- Section 173: Governs appeal against decisions of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.
CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT
The appellant, Alifiya Husenbhai Keshariya, argued that despite being awarded compensation by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, she had not yet received the awarded amount at the time of filing the appeal. Therefore, she contended that her indigency status should be assessed based on her financial situation when filing the appeal, not on the Tribunal’s decision to award compensation. Alifiya emphasised the principle of access to justice, asserting that financial constraints should not impede individuals, particularly those who have suffered injuries and disabilities, from pursuing legal remedies and appealing adverse judgments. She argued that equitable access to justice is a fundamental right and should not be restricted based on financial status. The appellant also pointed out that the High Court’s rejection of her application to file the appeal as an indigent person was contrary to the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), particularly Order XXXIII and Order XLIV, which allow for suits and appeals by indigent persons without payment of court fees. She argued that the High Court’s decision failed to consider these provisions and deprived her of her right to seek relief from court fees.
CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT
The respondent, Siddiq Ismail Sindhi & Ors., argued that the appellant’s claim of being an indigent person was unfounded since she had been awarded compensation by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. They contended that the Tribunal’s decision to grant compensation implied that the appellant was not in a financially precarious situation warranting exemption from court fees. Siddiq Ismail Sindhi & Ors. emphasised that the appellant’s claim for compensation had already been adjudicated upon by the Tribunal, which determined the amount payable to her. They argued that allowing the appellant to appeal as an indigent person would undermine the finality of the Tribunal’s decision and could potentially lead to abuse of the legal process by individuals seeking to evade payment of court fees. The respondent also contended that the appellant’s application to file the appeal as an indigent person was rightly rejected by the High Court, as she failed to demonstrate genuine financial hardship warranting exemption from court fees. They argued that the appellant’s financial situation should be assessed based on her ability to pay court fees at the time of filing the appeal, rather than her claimed indigency status.
COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT
The court analysed the case in light of the appellant’s contention of being an indigent person entitled to exemption from court fees when filing an appeal. It emphasised the principle of access to justice, highlighting that lack of financial means should not preclude individuals from seeking legal remedies. The court noted the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), particularly Order XXXIII and Order XLIV, which allow for suits and appeals by indigent persons without payment of court fees.
In its judgement, the court recognized that the appellant’s financial situation should be assessed based on her circumstances at the time of filing the appeal, rather than the Tribunal’s decision to award compensation. It noted that the appellant had not yet received the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, indicating that her financial status remained precarious. The court reiterated the importance of ensuring access to justice for all citizens, especially those who have suffered injuries and disabilities.
In light of these considerations, the court set aside the High Court’s rejection of the appellant’s application to file the appeal as an indigent person. It held that the appellant’s indigency status should have been evaluated based on her financial situation at the time of filing the appeal, and not solely on the Tribunal’s decision to award compensation. The court emphasised that the appellant’s right to seek relief from court fees should not be denied based on her financial status.
Furthermore, the court directed the High Court to decide the appeal expeditiously, preferably within six months, considering the considerable time that had passed since the Tribunal’s award. It urged the High Court to prioritise the appellant’s appeal and ensure timely justice delivery.
In conclusion, the court upheld the appellant’s right to seek exemption from court fees as an indigent person and directed the High Court to proceed with the appeal accordingly, emphasising the importance of equitable access to justice for all citizens.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement Reviewed by – Shruti Gattani
