# STATE OF HARYANA v. DARSHANA DEVI & ORS

- **Citation:** [1979] 3 S.C.R. 184
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1979-02-12
- **Bench:** V. R. Krishna Iyer, 0. Chinnappa Reddy
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/state-of-haryana-v-darshana-devi-ors-7772
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Civil Procedure Code, Or. XXXIII, application to accident-claims cases,
principles involved.
'fhe respondents, a. widow and her daughter, claimed con1pensation for the
•
killing of their sole bread-winner, by a Haryana State Transport bus, but could
,,
not afford to pay any court fee on their clai,m.
The High Court held that the ___,,.,{
exemptive provisions of Order XXXIII, c·rc, will apply to Accident Claims--
---..,__
Tribunals, which have the trappings of the Civil Court.
Dis-missing the special leave petition the Court,
HELD : The Sta.te should fram'e appropriate rules to exempt from levy of
court fee, cases of claims of compensation where automobile accidents are the
cause. T\vo principles are involved. Firstly, access to court, is an integral part
of social justice, and tfre State bas no rational litigation policy if it forgets this
fundamental, and secondly, it is the State's duty under Art. 41 of the Constitution to render assistance, without litigation, in cases of disablement and undeserved want. [185 B-C, D, 186 C]
M. Cappelletti, Rabels Z, (1976) 669 at 672; quoted with approval.
Obiter dictum :
I. It is a public duty of each great branch of Government to obey the rule
of law and uphold the trys.t with the Constitution by making rules to effec~μat't
legislation meant to help the poor. Now that insurance against third party risk
is oompul,sory and motor insurance is nationalised, a'-'ld transport itself i! largely
by Sta.le Undertakings, the principle of no-fault liability and on-the-spot e'ettlement of claims should become· national policy. [186 B, C, D-E]
II. Courts must give the accident claimS' cases high priority, adopt simplified
procedures \Vithout breach of natural jus-tice, try. out pre-trial settlements aind
narrow down the controversy and remember, that 'wiping every tear from every
eye' has judicial relevance. For, law must keep its promise to justice. [186 G~
H]

## Text

B
c
D
E
F
G
184
STATE OF HARYANA
v.
DARSHANA DEVI & ORS.
February 12, 1979
[V. R. KRISHNA IYER AND 0. CHINNAPPA REDDY, JJ.)
Civil Procedure Code, Or. XXXIII, application to accident-claims cases,
principles involved.
'fhe respondents, a. widow and her daughter, claimed con1pensation for the
•
killing of their sole bread-winner, by a Haryana State Transport bus, but could
,,
not afford to pay any court fee on their clai,m.
The High Court held that the ___,,.,{
exemptive provisions of Order XXXIII, c·rc, will apply to Accident Claims--
---..,__
Tribunals, which have the trappings of the Civil Court.
Dis-missing the special leave petition the Court,
HELD : The Sta.te should fram'e appropriate rules to exempt from levy of
court fee, cases of claims of compensation where automobile accidents are the
cause. T\vo principles are involved. Firstly, access to court, is an integral part
of social justice, and tfre State bas no rational litigation policy if it forgets this
fundamental, and secondly, it is the State's duty under Art. 41 of the Constitution to render assistance, without litigation, in cases of disablement and undeserved want. [185 B-C, D, 186 C]
M. Cappelletti, Rabels Z, (1976) 669 at 672; quoted with approval.
Obiter dictum :
I. It is a public duty of each great branch of Government to obey the rule
of law and uphold the trys.t with the Constitution by making rules to effec~μat't
legislation meant to help the poor. Now that insurance against third party risk
is oompul,sory and motor insurance is nationalised, a'-'ld transport itself i! largely
by Sta.le Undertakings, the principle of no-fault liability and on-the-spot e'ettlement of claims should become· national policy. [186 B, C, D-E]
II. Courts must give the accident claimS' cases high priority, adopt simplified
procedures \Vithout breach of natural jus-tice, try. out pre-trial settlements aind
narrow down the controversy and remember, that 'wiping every tear from every
eye' has judicial relevance. For, law must keep its promise to justice. [186 G~
H]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition (Civil)
No. 4120 of 1978.
From the Judgment and Order dated 8-3-78 of the Punjab and
Haryana High Court in Civil Revision No. 80 I /7 6.
Prem Malhotra and M. N. Shroff for the Petitioner.
The Order of the Court was delivered by
0
KRISHNA IYER, J.-We refuse leave bnt with a message tag.
The poor shall not be priced out of the justice market by insistence on court-fee and refusal to apply the exemptive provisions of
•
•
I
•
-~
J
,_
,
'
HARYANA
VDARSHANA (Krishna Iyer, !.)
185
Order XXXIII, C.P.C
So we are distressed
that the State of
Haryana, mindless of the mandate of equal justice to the
indigent
under the Magna Carta of our Republic, expressed in Article 14 and
stressed in Art 39A of the Constitution, has sought leave to appeal
against the order of the High Court which has rightly extended
the
'pauper' provisions to auto-accident claims.
The reasoning of
the
High Court in holding that Order XXXIII will apply to tribunals
which have the trappings of the civil court finds our approval.
We
affirm the decision.
Even so it is fair for the State to make clear the situation by fram-
~
--ing appropriate rules to exempt from levy of court fee cases of claims
-(
A
B
c
•
of compensation where automobile accidents are the cause .
•
·~
. '
Here is a case of a widow and daughter claiming compensation
for the killing of the sole bread-winner _by a State Transport bus; and
the Haryana Government, instead of acting on social
justice and
generously settling the claim, fights like a cantankerous. litigant even
by avoiding adjudication through the device of asking for court-fee
D
from the pathetic plaintiffs.
Two principles are involved.
Access to court is an
aspect of
Social Justice and the State has no rational litigation policy
if
it
forgets this fundamental.
Our perspective is best projected by Cappelletti, quoted by the Australian Law Reform Commission :
"The nght 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 se.en as the most basic requirement-the
most basic 'human right'-of a system which purports
to
guarantee legal right."(')
We should expand the jurisprudence of Access to Justice as an integral part of Social Justice and examine the constitutionalism of courtfee 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 39A, where an indigent widow is involved, a second look at i_ts policy is overdue.
The Court must give the
benefit of doubt against levy of a price to enter the temple of justice
-----
(l) M. Cappelletti, Rabcls Z (1976) 669 at 672.
I -i96SCll79
F
G
H
A
B
c
•
D
E
G
H
186
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1979] 3 S.CRuntil 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.
Before parting with this point we must express our poignant
feeling that no State, it seems, has, as yet, framed rules to give effect
to the benignal\t provision of legal aid to the poor in Order XXXIII
Rule 9 A, Civil Procedure Code, although several years have passed
since the enactment.
Parli~ment is stultified and the
People
are
frustrated.
Even after a law has been enacted for the benefit of the
Poor, the State does not bring into force by wilful default in fulfilling
'
•
the conditio sine qua non. It is a public duty of each great branch
'
of Gcvernmcnt to obey the rule of law and uphold the tryst with the - ~._
Constitution by making rules to effectuate legislation meant to help
~
the poor.
The second principle the State of Haryana has unhappily failed
to remember is its duty under Art. 41 of the Constitution to render
public assisttlnce, without litigation, in cases of disablement and undeserved want. It is a notorious fact that our highways are graveyards on a tragic sale, what with narrow, neglected roads, reckless,
unchecked drivers, heavy vehicular traffic and State Transport buses
often inflicting the maximum casualties.
Now that insurance against
third party risk is compulsory and motor insurance is nationalised
and transport itself is largely by State Undertakings, the principle of
no-fault liability and on-the-spot settlement of claims should becume
national policy.
The victims, as here, are mostly below the poverty
line and litigation is compounded misery.
Hit-and-run
cases
are
common and the time is ripe for the court to examine whether nofault liability is not implicit in the Motor Vehicles Act itself and for
Parliament to make law in this behalf to remove all doubts.
A long
ago Report of the Central Law Commission confined to hit-and-run-~
cases of auto-accidents is gathering dust.
The horrendous increase
- ""
of highway casualties and the chronic neglect of rules of road-safety
constrains us to recommend to the Central Law Commission and to
Parliament to senitize this tragic area of tort law and overhaul it
humanistic ally.
Another asi;>ect must be noticed before we part with this petition.
In many States, for want of judicial manpower or other pathological
causes, the accident claims pend before tribunals in heartless slowness.
Courts must give this bleeding class of cases high
priority,
adopt simplified procedures without breach of natural justice, try ont
pre-trial settlements and narrow down. the controversy and remember,
that 'wiping every tear from every eye' has jndicial relevance.
For,
law must keep its promise to Justice.
•
., .
•
•
•
•
•
-·
•
'-C
. '
HARYANA v. DARSHANA (Krishna Iyer, J.)
18 7
While we di•mi•s the petition for leave, we hope the Haryana
A
State will hasten to frame rules under the Motor Vehicles Act to
•enable claimants for compensation to be free from payment of courtfee .
M.R.
Petition dismissed.
B
~ -