{"id":105870,"date":"2008-07-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-07-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gsrtc-vs-dr-rajesh-on-11-july-2008"},"modified":"2017-07-12T10:36:03","modified_gmt":"2017-07-12T05:06:03","slug":"gsrtc-vs-dr-rajesh-on-11-july-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gsrtc-vs-dr-rajesh-on-11-july-2008","title":{"rendered":"Gsrtc vs Dr.Rajesh on 11 July, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Gsrtc vs Dr.Rajesh on 11 July, 2008<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: H.K.Rathod,&amp;Nbsp;<\/div>\n<pre>   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nFA\/2571\/2007\t 9\/ 9\tORDER \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nFIRST\nAPPEAL No. 2571 of 2007\n \n\nWith\n\n\n \n\nCIVIL\nAPPLICATION No. 7422 of 2007\n \n\nIn\nFIRST APPEAL No. 2571 of 2007\n \n\n \n \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\nGSRTC\n- Appellant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nDR.RAJESH\nBHAGATRAM SAIGAL &amp; 1 - Defendant(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance : \nMRS\nFALGUNI D PATEL for Appellant(s) : 1, \nNone for\nDefendant(s) : 1 -\n2. \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE H.K.RATHOD\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 11\/07\/2008 \n\n \n\n \n \nORAL\nORDER<\/pre>\n<p>Heard<br \/>\n\tlearned Advocate Ms. Falguni D. Patel for the appellant ?  GSRTC.\n<\/p>\n<p>Through<br \/>\n\tthis appeal, the appellant Corporation has challenged the award made<br \/>\n\tby the Joint District Judge, FTC NO.1, Ahmedabad (Rural) at<br \/>\n\tAhmedabad in MAC Petition NO. 1850 of 1990 dated 29th<br \/>\n\tNovember, 2003 wherein the MACP filed by the claimant is allowed and<br \/>\n\tamount of Rs.1,17,000.00 is granted to the claimant from the<br \/>\n\tappellant corporation with interest thereon at the rate of 9 per<br \/>\n\tcent per annum from the date of claim petition till realization with<br \/>\n\tproportionate costs to the claimant while clarifying that the amount<br \/>\n\tpaid as interim compensation under section140 of the MV Act, 1988<br \/>\n\tto be adjusted.\n<\/p>\n<p>Learned<br \/>\n\tAdvocate Ms. Patel for the appellant Corporation has raised the<br \/>\n\tcontention that there is no sufficient documentary evidence produced<br \/>\n\tby the claimant for his income before the Tribunal and yet, the<br \/>\n\tTribunal has fixed the income of the claimant at Rs.5000.00 p.m. She<br \/>\n\thas also raised the contention that the 10 per cent disability for<br \/>\n\tthe body as a whole decided by the Claims Tribunal is on higher<br \/>\n\tside. She has also submitted that looking to the age of the claimant<br \/>\n\t33 years, multiplier of 15 adopted by the claims tribunal is also on<br \/>\n\thigher side. She also raised contention that there is no evidence<br \/>\n\tproduced by the claimant about the loss of earning or income. Except<br \/>\n\tthat, no other contention was raised by the learned Advocate Ms.<br \/>\n\tPatel before this Court while challenging the award in question. No<br \/>\n\tdecision was cited by her in support of the contentions as aforesaid<br \/>\n\trecorded by this Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>I<br \/>\n\thave considered the contentions raised by the learned Advocate Ms.<br \/>\n\tPatel. I have also perused the award in question. So far as the<br \/>\n\tfactum of accident in question is concerned, advocate Mr. Acharya<br \/>\n\tappearing for the Corporation before the Claims Tribunal has not<br \/>\n\tobjected the same and on the contrary, he has admitted that accident<br \/>\n\tin question has taken place because of the rash and negligent<br \/>\n\tdriving on the part of the driver of the ST Corporation.\n<\/p>\n<p>The<br \/>\n\tClaims Tribunal has considered the quantum point on claimant side<br \/>\n\tthat the claimant is a Doctor and earning Rs.5000.00 p.m. Injury<br \/>\n\tcertificate is produced at Exh. 22 and disability certificate is<br \/>\n\tproduced at Exh. 23. It was observed by the Claims Tribunal in para<br \/>\n\t6 of the award that both the contesting parties have consented to<br \/>\n\taccept permanent disability for the body as a whole at the rate of<br \/>\n\t10 per cent. While considering the income point, the tribunal  has<br \/>\n\tconsidered the income  of the claimant on the basis of his<br \/>\n\tprofession of doctor and believed his statement on oath. No evidence<br \/>\n\tto the contrary was produced by the corporation on record before the<br \/>\n\tclaims Tribunal in respect of the income. Monthly loss of income<br \/>\n\tcomes on the basis of 10 per cent disability for the body as a<br \/>\n\twhole, for that, no proof is necessary to be produced by the<br \/>\n\tclaimant but it should have to be worked out on the basis of 10 per<br \/>\n\tcent disability for the body as a whole. Therefore, accordingly, the<br \/>\n\tclaims tribunal has considered the loss of income at Rs.500.00 and<br \/>\n\tannual loss of income would come to Rs.6000.00. As per my opinion,<br \/>\n\tmultiplier of 15 is rightly applied by the claims tribunal looking<br \/>\n\tto the age of the claimant 33 years as the accident is of 10th<br \/>\n\tMay, 1990. It is necessary to note that MACP No. 1850 of 1990 is<br \/>\n\tdecided by the Claims Tribunal after thirteen years on 29th<br \/>\n\tNovember, 2003 and now law of the year 2008 has been cited by the<br \/>\n\tlawyer for the corporation. It is really embarrassing for the Court<br \/>\n\tto consider the impugned award passed by the Claims Tribunal on 29th<br \/>\n\tNovember, 2003 in respect of the accident dated  10th<br \/>\n\tMay, 1990 on the basis of the law of the year 2008 decided by the<br \/>\n\tapex court on the ground that considering the age of claimant 33<br \/>\n\tyears at the time of accident, multiplier of 15 is on higher side<br \/>\n\tthough no such point was canvassed by the appellant before the<br \/>\n\tclaims tribunal. Therefore, according to my opinion, the claims<br \/>\n\ttribunal is right in examining the matter and applying multiplier of<br \/>\n\t15 which was made available according to the law established in the<br \/>\n\tyear 2003. Therefore, the Claims Tribunal has not committed any<br \/>\n\terror in applying the multiplier of 15 considering the age of the<br \/>\n\tclaimant 33 years. Accordingly, the Tribunal was right in granting<br \/>\n\tRs.7000.00 for the pain, shock and suffering of the claimant and<br \/>\n\tRs.3000.00 for special diet, transportation and attendant charges<br \/>\n\tetc. and Rs.12000.00 towards medical expenses. Claimant was claiming<br \/>\n\tactual loss of income for two months but looking to the facts on<br \/>\n\trecord, the claims tribunal held that the claimant will be entitled<br \/>\n\tto get Rs.5000.00 under the head of actual loss of income and, thus<br \/>\n\tclaims tribunal held that the claimant will be entitled to get<br \/>\n\tRs.1,17,000.00 as compensation. Learned Advocate Ms. Patel has not<br \/>\n\tchallenged the rest of the amounts awarded by the claims tribunal.<br \/>\n\tTherefore, relevant discussion made by the Claims Tribunal in para 6<br \/>\n\tof the impugned award is reproduced as under:\n<\/p>\n<p>?S6.\tSo<br \/>\n\tfar the quantum point is concerned, it is the case of the claimant<br \/>\n\tside that the claimant is a doctor and earning Rs.5000=00 per month.<br \/>\n\tInjury Certificate is produced at Exh.22 and disability certificate<br \/>\n\tis produced at Exh. 23. Both the contesting parties have contested<br \/>\n\tto accept permanent disability body as a whole at the rate of 10%.<br \/>\n\tSo far the income point is concerned, the claimant is a doctor and<br \/>\n\tso naturally he must be earning Rs.5000=00 per month. So the monthly<br \/>\n\tloss of incom e would come to Rs.500=00 and yearly loss of income<br \/>\n\twould come to Rs.6000.00. So far point of granting multiplier is<br \/>\n\tconcerned, the claimant has asked for grant of 15 multiplier and<br \/>\n\tthat point is not objected by other side. Furthermore, the age of<br \/>\n\tthe claimant was 33 years at the time of occurrence. So grant of 15<br \/>\n\tmultiplier is just and reasonable in this regard. So if Rs.6000.00<br \/>\n\tis multiplied by 15, then, it will reach to Rs.90000.00. The<br \/>\n\tclaimant will be entitled for the amount of Rs.90,000.00 under the<br \/>\n\thead of future loss of income. So far the point of pain, shock and<br \/>\n\tsuffering is concerned, the claimant has asked for granting<br \/>\n\tRs.10,000.00 under this head. But it is some what exaggerated<br \/>\n\tamount. I am of the opinion that Rs.7,000.00 will be just and<br \/>\n\treasonable under this head. The claimant has prayed the amount of<br \/>\n\tRs.5,000.00 under the head of special diet, transportation,<br \/>\n\tattendant charges etc. But if we go through the record, he has been<br \/>\n\ttreated as indoor patient for 12 days only. So the amount of<br \/>\n\tRs.3000.00 will be just and reasonable under these heads. The amount<br \/>\n\tof Rs.12,000.00 will be just and reasonable towards  medical<br \/>\n\texpenses and the medical bills are also produced on record of nearly<br \/>\n\tRs.12,000.00. The claimant has claimed the actual loss of income for<br \/>\n\ttwo months but looking to the facts of the record, I am of the<br \/>\n\topinion that the claimant will be entitled for one month&#8217;s actual<br \/>\n\tloss of income. Hence, the claimant will be entitled to get<br \/>\n\tRs.5,000.00 under the head of actual loss of income. Thus, the<br \/>\n\tclaimant will be entitled to get Rs.1,17,000.00 as compensation.??\n<\/p>\n<p>I<br \/>\n\thave considered the reasoning given by the Claims Tribunal as well<br \/>\n\tas the consent given by the advocate for the corporation before the<br \/>\n\tClaims Tribunal on both the occasion, one accepting the negligence<br \/>\n\ton the part of the driver of the bus of the ST Corporation  in<br \/>\n\tdriving the vehicle in question and also accepting the 10 per cent<br \/>\n\tdisability for the body as a whole. Therefore, naturally, as a<br \/>\n\tdoctor, a reasonable amount is rightly fixed by the claims tribunal<br \/>\n\tand for that, it cannot be considered to be on higher side  and the<br \/>\n\tloss of income is the natural consequence to be determined on the<br \/>\n\tbasis of the disability decided by the Claims Tribunal and,<br \/>\n\ttherefore, according to my opinion, the compensation awarded by the<br \/>\n\tClaims Tribunal cannot be considered tobe on higher side but it is<br \/>\n\tjust and reasonable compensation awarded by the claims tribunal.<br \/>\n\tTribunal has applied mind and considered the record and consent<br \/>\n\tgiven by the advocate for the corporation and rightly awarded just<br \/>\n\tcompensation. In doing so, the claims tribunal has not committed any<br \/>\n\terror which would require interference of this court and, therefore,<br \/>\n\tthere is no substance in this appeal and same is required to be<br \/>\n\tdismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>Accordingly,<br \/>\n\tfor the reasons recorded here in above, this appeal is dismissed.<br \/>\n\tAmount deposited by the appellant Corporation in the Registry of<br \/>\n\tthis Court be transmitted to the Claims Tribunal immediately.\n<\/p>\n<p>As<br \/>\n\tthe first appeal has been dismissed by this court, no orders are<br \/>\n\trequired to be made on the aforesaid civil application. Therefore,<br \/>\n\tCivil Application No. 7422 of 2007 for stay is also disposed of.\n<\/p>\n<p>(H.K.\n<\/p>\n<p>Rathod,J.)<\/p>\n<p>Vyas<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Gsrtc vs Dr.Rajesh on 11 July, 2008 Author: H.K.Rathod,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print FA\/2571\/2007 9\/ 9 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 2571 of 2007 With CIVIL APPLICATION No. 7422 of 2007 In FIRST APPEAL No. 2571 of 2007 ========================================================= GSRTC &#8211; Appellant(s) [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-105870","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Gsrtc vs Dr.Rajesh on 11 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gsrtc-vs-dr-rajesh-on-11-july-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Gsrtc vs Dr.Rajesh on 11 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gsrtc-vs-dr-rajesh-on-11-july-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-07-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-07-12T05:06:03+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gsrtc-vs-dr-rajesh-on-11-july-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gsrtc-vs-dr-rajesh-on-11-july-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Gsrtc vs Dr.Rajesh on 11 July, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-12T05:06:03+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gsrtc-vs-dr-rajesh-on-11-july-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1498,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gsrtc-vs-dr-rajesh-on-11-july-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gsrtc-vs-dr-rajesh-on-11-july-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gsrtc-vs-dr-rajesh-on-11-july-2008\",\"name\":\"Gsrtc vs Dr.Rajesh on 11 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-12T05:06:03+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gsrtc-vs-dr-rajesh-on-11-july-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gsrtc-vs-dr-rajesh-on-11-july-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gsrtc-vs-dr-rajesh-on-11-july-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Gsrtc vs Dr.Rajesh on 11 July, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Gsrtc vs Dr.Rajesh on 11 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gsrtc-vs-dr-rajesh-on-11-july-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Gsrtc vs Dr.Rajesh on 11 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gsrtc-vs-dr-rajesh-on-11-july-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-07-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-07-12T05:06:03+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gsrtc-vs-dr-rajesh-on-11-july-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gsrtc-vs-dr-rajesh-on-11-july-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Gsrtc vs Dr.Rajesh on 11 July, 2008","datePublished":"2008-07-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-12T05:06:03+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gsrtc-vs-dr-rajesh-on-11-july-2008"},"wordCount":1498,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gsrtc-vs-dr-rajesh-on-11-july-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gsrtc-vs-dr-rajesh-on-11-july-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gsrtc-vs-dr-rajesh-on-11-july-2008","name":"Gsrtc vs Dr.Rajesh on 11 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-07-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-12T05:06:03+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gsrtc-vs-dr-rajesh-on-11-july-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gsrtc-vs-dr-rajesh-on-11-july-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gsrtc-vs-dr-rajesh-on-11-july-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Gsrtc vs Dr.Rajesh on 11 July, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/105870","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=105870"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/105870\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=105870"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=105870"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=105870"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}