CASE TITLE- Alifiya husenbhai keshariya versus Siddiq Ismail sindhi & ors.
CASE NUMBER- CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2024 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.729/2020)
DATED ON- 27.05.2024
QUORUM- HON’BLE JUSTICE SANJAY KAROL
FACTS OF THE CASE
The claimant got injured in an accident on July 4, 2010, while riding pillion on a bike and which got hit by a truck. Thereafter, she got admitted to a hospital for medical treatment for a period of fourteen days and subsequently she underwent plastic surgery. At the time of the accident, she was earning Rs.3000 per month, but after the accident took place, she sustained permanent disablement and was not able to work thereafter. The claim was originally filed by the appellant, before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal of Rs. 10 lakhs with 18% interest and costs. On 17th October, 2016, the tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 2,42,745 with 9% interest from the date of claim petition till the date of realization. Dissatisfied with the tribunal award, the claimant appealed to the High Court of Gujrat and prayed for permission to file the said first appeal as an Indigent person. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the said application. Aggrieved by the decision of High Court, appeal to the Supreme Court is made.
ISSUE RAISED
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?
LEGAL PROVISIONS
Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988- The High Court may entertain the appeal after the expiry of the said period of ninety days, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal in time.
Order 33, CPC- Deals with suits by indigent persons.
CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT
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, the desire of the claimant-appellant to file an appeal must be considered. The ground, upon which the 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, but, the appellant had not yet received the said amount. The intent of Orders XXXIII and XLIV exemplify that lack of monetary capability does not preclude a person from knocking on the doors of the Court to seek vindication of his rights. Therefore, the High Court was incorrect in rejecting the application. The appellant court did not conduct an Inquiry that at the time of filing claim before the tribunal, she was an Indigent person or not.
CONTENTION OF THE RESPONDENT
No contention on the part of the respondent is found.
COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT
At the time of filing the appeal she was arguably indigent and that the statutory requirement under the C.P.C., as described above, was not met, the appeal was allowed by the Honorable Court, and the Impugned Judgement of the High Court was set aside. The court remanded the matter to the High Court for further Inquiry and with the view of the considerable time has passed, the liberty was granted to the appellant to appeal as an Indigent person. And while considering the facts of the case, the court requested the High Court that the appeal filed by the claimant-appellant be decided expeditiously, and preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment.
“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- Shreyasi Ghatak
Click here to view the judgement
