ALIFIYA HUSENBHAI KESHARIYA versus SIDDIQ ISMAIL SINDHI & ORS.
[2024] 5 S.C.R. 896, Supreme Court of India, 2024
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Issues
* 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.	
The sole point for our consideration is 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?
3.	
The factual scenario giving rise to this appeal is :-
3.1	 The appellant, who was the original claimant before the Motor 
Accident Claims Tribunal, [Court of Motor Accident Claims 
Tribunal (Auxiliary) & 10th (Adhoc) Addl. District Court Jude, 
Jamnagar]2 in M.A.C.P.No.255 of 2011, was injured in an 
accident on 4th July 2010, while riding pillion on a bike, which 
was hit by a truck. Having sustained injuries, she was admitted 
for medical treatment at a
hospital for a period of fourteen days 
and subsequently she underwent plastic surgery. 	
3.2	 At the time of the accident, she was earning Rs.3,000/- per 
month, but, post the accident, she sustained permanent 
1	
[1979] 3 SCR 184 : (1979) 2 SCC 236
2	
Hereafter, ‘Tribunal’
[2024] 5 S.C.R. 
899
Alifiya Husenbhai Keshariya v. Siddiq Ismail Sindhi & Ors.
disablement, and hence had not been able to work thereafter. 
A claim was filed for Rs.10 lakhs with 18% interest and costs. 
3.3	 The Tribunal vide Award dated 17th October 2016, awarded a 
sum of Rs.2,41,745/- with 9% interest from the date of claim 
petition till the date of realization and proportionate cost(s). 
4.	
Dissatisfied thereby, the claimant-appellant approached the High 
Court of Gujarat by way of Regular First Appeal No. 2611/2017. 
Misc. Civil Application No.3/2018 was filed therein by which the 
claimant-appellant prayed for permission to file the said First Appeal 
as an indigent person.
5.	
The High Court vide judgment and order dated 7th August, 2018 
dismissed the Misc. Civil Application observing as under :
“….3. It is a matter of record that the claimants filed claim 
petition before the Tribunal and claimed Rs. 10,00,000/-, 
whereby the Tribunal by partly allowing the claim petition 
vide the impugned award, awarded a sum of Rs. 2,41,745/- 
along with 9% interest from the date of claim petition till 
its realization.
4. In light of the aforesaid, the applicant–appellant cannot 
be considered to be indigent person and therefore, he has 
to pay court fees first.
5. Ms. Rana, learned counsel for the applicant, however, 
submits that, till date, no amount is received by the 
applicant. It is open for the applicant to pursue the said 
remedy before appropriate forum.
In view
of the above, present application is not entertained. 
Time to deposit Court fees is granted for 8 weeks from 
today.”
(Emphasis supplied)
6.	
We may refer to this Court’s decision in Mathai M. Paikeday v. 
C.K. Antony,3 wherein the concept of an indigent person has been 
discussed at length. Relevant extracts are reproduced as follows:-
3	
[2011] 7 SCR 230 : (2011) 13 SCC 174
900
[2024] 5 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
“16. The concept of indigent person has been discussed in 
Corpus Juris Secundum (20 CJS Costs § 93) as following:
“§ 93. What constitutes indigency.—The right 
to sue in forma pauperis is restricted to indigent 
persons. A person may proceed as poor person 
only after a court is satisfied that he or she is 
unable to prosecute the suit and pay the costs and 
expenses. A person is indigent if the payment of 
fees would deprive one of basic living expenses, 
or if the person is in a state of impoverishment that 
substantially and effectively impairs or prevents 
the pursuit of a court remedy. However, a person 
need not be destitute. Factors considered when 
determining if a litigant is indigent are similar to 
those considered in criminal cases, and include 
the party’s employment status and income, 
including income from government sources 
such as social security and unemployment 
benefits, the ownership of unencumbered assets, 
including real or personal property and money 
on deposit, the party’s total indebtedness, and 
any financial assistance received from family or 
close friends. Not only personal liquid assets, 
but also alternative sources of money should 
be considered.”
17. The eligibility of person to sue in forma pauperis has 
been considered in American Jurisprudence (20 Am Jur 
2d Costs § 100) as thus:
“§ 100. Eligibility to sue in forma pauperis; 
generally.—The burden of establishing indigency 
is on the
defendant claiming indigent status, who 
must demonstrate not that he or she is entirely 
destitute and without funds, but that payments 
for counsel would place an undue hardship on 
his or her ability to provide the basic necessities 
of life for himself or herself and his or her family. 
Factors particularly relevant to the determination 
of whether a party to a civil proceeding is
[2024] 5 S.C.R. 
901
Alifiya Husenbhai Keshariya v. Siddiq Ismail Sindhi & Ors.
indigent are: (1) the party’s employment 
status and income, including income from 
government sources such as social security 
and unemployment benefits; (2) the ownership 
of any unencumbered assets, including real or 
personal property and monies on deposit; and 
finally (3) the party’s total indebtedness and any 
financial assistance received from family or close 
friends. Where two people are living together and 
functioning as a single economic unit, whether 
married, related, or otherwise, consideration 
of their combined financial assets may be 
warranted for the purposes of determining a 
party’s indigency status in a civil proceeding.”
7.	
The Code of Civil Procedure, 19084 provides for mechanism by 
which a person who is indigent may file a suit or an appeal. Order 
XXXIII thereof pertains to filing of suits and Order XLIV deals with 
appeals by such persons. 
8.	
In the present matter, we are concerned with an appeal envisaged 
under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988.5 
9.	
Rule 1 of Order XLIV dealing with appeal filed as an indigent person, 
reads as under : 
“1. Who may appeal 3[as an indigent person. — Any 
person entitled to prefer an appeal, who is unable to pay the 
fee required for the memorandum of appeal, may present 
an application accompanied by a memorandum of appeal, 
and may be allowed to appeal as an indigent person, 
subject, in all matters, including the
presentation of such 
application, to the provisions relating to suits by indigent 
persons, in so far as those provisions are applicable.”
10.	 The operation of the above two provisions has been noted by this 
Court in R.V. Dev v. Chief Secretary, Govt. of Kerala,6 in para 8 
whereof it was observed :
4	
Hereinafter C.P.C.
5	
Hereinafter the ‘MV Act’
6	
[2007] 6 SCR 886 : (2007) 5 SCC 698
902
[2024] 5 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
“8……When an application is filed by a person said to be 
indigent, certain factors for considering as to whether he 
is so within the meaning of the said provision are required 
to be taken into consideration therefor. A person who is 
permitted to sue as an indigent person is liable to pay the 
court fees which would have been paid by him if he was 
not permitted to sue in that capacity, if he fails in the suit 
at the trial or without trial. Payment of court fees as the 
scheme suggests is merely deferred. It is not altogether 
wiped off.”
(Emphasis supplied)
In regard to the application of Order XXXIII of the Code, a perusal 
of the decision in Union Bank of India v. Khader International 
Construction & Ors.7 reveals the following principles :
(i)	
It is an enabling provision for filing of a suit by an indigent 
person without paying the court fee at the initial stage. 
(ii)	
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. The said amount is recoverable by the 
State in accordance with who may ordered to pay the same 
in the decree. 
(iii)	 Even when a suit is dismissed, the court fee shall be recoverable 
by the State in the form of first charge on the subject-matter 
of the suit. 
It was further held that – 
“20…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.”
11.	 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. 
7	
[2001] 3 SCR 580 : (2001) 5 SCC 22
[2024] 5 S.C.R. 
903
Alifiya Husenbhai Keshariya v. Siddiq Ismail Sindhi & Ors.
12.	 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 recognize the desire of the claimant-appellant to file 
an appeal. 
13.	 Once again turning to Darshana Devi (supra), we refer to certain 
observations made therein -
“5……Our perspective is best projected by Cappelletti, 
quoted by the Australian Law Reform Commission:
“The right of effective access to justice has emerged with 
the new social rights. Indeed, it is of paramount importance 
among these new rights since, clearly, the enjoyment 
of traditional as well as new social rights presupposes 
mechanisms for their effective protection. Such protection, 
moreover, is best assured by a workable remedy within the 
framework of the judicial system. Effective access to justice 
can thus be seen as the most basic requirement — the 
most ‘basic human right’ — of a system which purports 
to guarantee legal right.” [ M. Cappelletti, Rabels, (1976) 
669 at 672]
We should expand the jurisprudence of access to justice 
as an integral part of Social Justice and examine the 
constitutionalism of court-fee levy as a facet of human 
rights highlighted in our Nation’s Constitution. If the State 
itself should travesty this basic
principle, in the teeth of 
Articles 14 and 39-A, where an indigent widow is involved, 
a second look at its policy is overdue. The Court must 
give the benefit of doubt against levy of a price to enter 
the temple of justice until one day the whole issue of 
the validity of profit-making through sale of civil justice, 
disguised as court-fee, is fully reviewed by this Court…” 
14.	 In the present case although the State is not the one in appeal, the 
observations in regard to the insistence upon court fees by the High 
Court to be taken from the meager amount awarded as compensation 
even after having recorded that she had not yet received the said 
amount, has prompted us to refer to the above extract.
904
[2024] 5 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
15.	 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 learned 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. 
16.	 There is a further ground on which we find that 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 Khader International 
(supra), 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. 
17.	 Order XLIV Rule 3(2) provides as under : 
“3. Inquiry as to whether applicant is an indigent 
person.-(1)……
(2) Where the applicant, referred to in rule 11, is alleged 
to have become an indigent person since the date of 
the decree appealed from, the inquiry into the question 
whether or not he is an
indigent person shall be made by 
the Appellate Court or, under the orders of the Appellate 
Court, by an officer of that Court unless the Appellate Court 
considers it necessary in the circumstances of the case 
that the inquiry should be held by the Court from whose 
decision the appeal is preferred.” 
The Appellate Court, in accordance with the above, did not conduct 
any inquiry. The same was necessitated since nothing on record 
speaks of the claimant-appellant having filed the claim before the 
learned 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
[2024] 5 S.C.R. 
905
Alifiya Husenbhai Keshariya v. Siddiq Ismail Sindhi & Ors.
pleader objects or disputes such claim in which case an inquiry shall 
be held by the Appellate Court or under the orders thereof. 
18.	 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. 
19.	 Having observed as above, we allow the appeal and set aside 
the impugned judgment and order dated 7th August, 2018 of the 
learned Single Judge passed in Misc. Civil Application No.3/2018 in 
Regular First Appeal No.2611/2017. 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.
20.	 While recognizing that in ordinary circumstances this Court should 
not impose timelines for disposal of cases, but considering the facts 
of this case, in particular, that the Award of the Tribunal is dated 17th 
October,
2016, and the rejection of Misc. Civil Application seeking 
permission to file the appeal as an indigent person before the High 
Court, is dated 7th August, 2018, we request 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. We direct the Registry to immediately 
transmit the same to the learned Registrar General of the High Court 
of Gujarat for necessary follow-up action. 
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
Result of the case: Appeal allowed.
†Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan