GULABSANG MERUJI Vs. JAYANTILAL SHANKARLAL BRAHMIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Hard the learned counsel for the parties. Prayer has been made in this M.C.A. by the applicant- claimant in accident claims case to allow him to file the first appeal against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jamnagar, in M.A.C.P. No. 98 of 1983 decided on 6.7.1996 as an indigent person. From the schedule of the property attached to this M.C.A., I find that the total worth of the property which is in possession of the applicant is Rs. 950.

(2.) Learned counsel for the applicant stated that the applicant was permitted to file claim application before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal as an indigent person and that claim application has been dismissed and his financial position has not improved. The counsel for the applicant further contended that the financial position of the applicant in fact became more worse than what it was at the time of filing of the claim application. On the other hand, the counsel for the State contended that normally in the applications filed by the appellants before this court to permit them to file appeals as indigent persons correct figures of property are not given. It is true that what the learned counsel for the State contended is not 100 per cent incorrect. But this court cannot be oblivious of the fact that the applicant was permitted to file claim as indigent person and his claim application has been dismissed. Moreover by grant of permission to file appeal as indigent person this court is not exempting the applicant from payment of court fees, but it is a case where the payment of the court fees is deferred. Ultimately, the court fee has to be paid by the applicant and it may be the first charge on the claim, if the compensation as prayed for by him is accepted by this court.

(3.) This matter can be considered from yet another angle. We are talking today of providing legal aid to the needy persons. Time and again, in all seminars and other functions held on the topic of providing legal aid to the poor persons, it is felt that they may not have the impression that because of their financial condition they could not take up the matter in appeal. To achieve that goal and purpose these matters are to be considered liberally. In the legal aid programmes, whatever amount paid as legal assistance to the litigants, I have been informed that it is not repayable by the litigants. In the case where a person comes up with prayer that he may be permitted to file appeal as an indigent person, as stated in the earlier part of this judgment, by permitting him to file appeal as indigent person, payment of court fees is only being deferred. So this court, while dealing with such applications, should be more liberal which will advance the cause of justice to poor persons. In such applications, strict inquiry of the nature as earlier contemplated and that too in the changed circumstances and the conception of legal aid, should not be insisted. If somebody comes before this court and makes statement on oath that he is not in a position to pay court fees, I fail to see why it should not be accepted on its face value unless the other side has produced cogent and satisfactory evidence to prove to the contrary. Yet one another aspect to be dealt with is that in such matter whether any notice is required to be given to the respondents of the application. Giving of notice of this application will take some valuable time of the court in deciding such application, which normally should be allowed and exception should be to decline. Taking the statement made by the applicant regarding the assets and properties on the face value, this application has to be granted. However, liberty may be given to the other side to challenge the same with necessary, cogent and justifiable evidence.