Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 – Section 173 – Enhancement of compensation – Indigent person – Appellant, an indigent person, was injured in a motor vehicle accident and filed a claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) for Rs. 10 lakhs – The MACT awarded her Rs. 2,41,745 with 9% interest from the date of the claim petition till realization – The appellant then filed an appeal before the High Court of Gujarat seeking enhanced compensation – The High Court dismissed the appeal and denied the appellant permission to file the appeal as an indigent person, stating that she had received compensation by the MACT and was therefore not indigent – The appellant argued that she was still indigent despite receiving compensation from the MACT, as she had not yet received the awarded amount – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court’s judgment – The court held that the appellant was still indigent despite receiving compensation from the MACT, as she had not yet received the awarded amount – The court granted the appellant liberty to appeal as an indigent person and requested the High Court to decide the appeal expeditiously, preferably within six months from the date of receipt of the copy of the judgment – The court relied on previous judgments to define the concept of an ‘indigent person’ and applied the principle that lack of monetary capability should not preclude a person from seeking justice – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s judgment, and granted the appellant liberty to appeal as an indigent person.

Bysclaw

Jun 2, 2024

This content is restricted to site members. If you are an existing user, please log in. New users may register below.

Existing Users Log In
   

By sclaw

You missed

Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (Distribution Licence) Regulations, 2013 – Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 – Sections 3 and 4 – Electricity Act – Section 14(b) – Whether a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) developer, deemed to be a distribution licensee under the Electricity Act, is required to make an application for a distribution license and comply with the conditions set out in the Electricity Rules and Regulations. – The appeal challenges the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity’s decision to require an appellant to infuse additional capital as a condition for being identified as a deemed distribution licensee – The court questioned whether a SEZ developer is ipso facto a deemed distribution licensee, obviating the need for an application under section 14 of the Electricity Act – The appellant argued that they are automatically a deemed distribution licensee by virtue of the 2010 Notification and that the conditions imposed by TSERC were in excess of jurisdiction – The respondents argued that the appellant must comply with the 2005 and 2013 Regulations and that TSERC is empowered to impose conditions to assess credit-worthiness – The Supreme Court partially allowed the appeal, setting aside the condition of additional capital infusion imposed by TSERC – The court reasoned that the appellant must apply to be recognized as a deemed licensee but is not subject to the additional capital requirements of regulation 12 and rule 3(2) – The court concluded that the appellant is required to make an application as per the 2013 Regulations, and the condition to infuse additional capital is not justified.