{"id":113888,"date":"2009-04-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-04-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harish-chand-ors-vs-balkishan-and-others-on-13-april-2009"},"modified":"2016-08-04T13:20:46","modified_gmt":"2016-08-04T07:50:46","slug":"harish-chand-ors-vs-balkishan-and-others-on-13-april-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harish-chand-ors-vs-balkishan-and-others-on-13-april-2009","title":{"rendered":"Harish Chand & Ors. vs Balkishan And Others on 13 April, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court<\/div>\n
Harish Chand & Ors. vs Balkishan And Others on 13 April, 2009<\/div>\n
Author: Kailash Gambhir<\/div>\n
        IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI\n\n                   FAO. No.198\/2000\n\n                            Judgment reserved on: 7.1.2008\n\n                            Judgment delivered on: 13.4.2009\n\nHarish Chand & Ors.                 ..... Appellants.\n                               Through: Mr. J.S. Kanwar, Advocate\n\n                   versus\n\nBalkishan and Others                  ..... Respondents\n                              Through: Nemo.\n\n\nCORAM:\nHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR,\n\n1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may\n   be allowed to see the judgment?                     No\n\n2. To be referred to Reporter or not?                  No\n\n3. Whether the judgment should be reported             No\n   in the Digest?\n\n\nKAILASH GAMBHIR, J.\n<\/pre>\n
1.    The present appeal arises out of the award dated 2\/12\/1999 of<\/p>\n
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whereby the Tribunal awarded a<\/p>\n
sum of Rs. 66,608\/- along with interest @ 12% per annum to the<\/p>\n
claimants.\n<\/p>\n
2.           The brief conspectus of the facts is as follows:<\/p>\n
FAO No. 198\/2000                               Page 1 of 8<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
              On 26\/11\/1992 at about 10:50 pm, the deceased, Sh.<\/p>\n
Kishori Lal, was traveling in the mini bus bearing registration no. DL<\/p>\n
1B 0097 from ISBT, Delhi to Seelampur. The said mini bus was<\/p>\n
being driven by Sh. Bal Kishan, in a rash and negligent manner.<\/p>\n
When the bus reached at red light of chowk Shastri Park, ISBT<\/p>\n
Bridge, the driver lost control of the bus and it struck against the<\/p>\n
central fencing and turned turtle as a result of which, many<\/p>\n
passengers received grevious and fatal injuries and Sh. Kishori Lal<\/p>\n
died on the spot.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
              A claim petition was filed on 15\/3\/1993 and an award<\/p>\n
was    made        on   2\/12\/1999.   Aggrieved   with     the   said   award<\/p>\n
enhancement is claimed by way of the present appeal.<\/p>\n
3.           Sh. J.S. Kanwar, counsel for the appellants assailed the<\/p>\n
said award on quantum of damages. Counsel for the appellants<\/p>\n
contended that the tribunal has erred in assessing the income of<\/p>\n
the deceased as per the Minimum Wages Act whereas after looking<\/p>\n
at the facts and circumstances of the case the tribunal should have<\/p>\n
assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 3,000\/- per month. The<\/p>\n
counsel submitted that the tribunal erroneously applied the<\/p>\n
multiplier of 8 while computing compensation when according to<\/p>\n
FAO No. 198\/2000                                 Page 2 of 8<\/span>
\n the facts and circumstances of the case multiplier of 8 is on the<\/p>\n
lower side. It was urged by the counsel that the tribunal erred in not<\/p>\n
considering future prospects while computing compensation as it<\/p>\n
failed to appreciate that the deceased would have earned much<\/p>\n
more in near future as he was of 25 yrs of age only and would have<\/p>\n
lived for another 40-50 yrs had he not met with the accident. The<\/p>\n
counsel also stated that had the deceased not met with his<\/p>\n
untimely death he would have been earning much more in the near<\/p>\n
future. It was also alleged by the counsel that the tribunal did not<\/p>\n
consider the fact that due to high rates of inflation the deceased<\/p>\n
would have earned much more in near future and the tribunal also<\/p>\n
failed in appreciating the fact that even the minimum wages are<\/p>\n
revised twice in an year and hence, the deceased would have<\/p>\n
earned much more in her life span. The counsel also raised the<\/p>\n
contention that the rate of interest allowed by the tribunal is on the<\/p>\n
lower side and the tribunal should have allowed simple interest<\/p>\n
from the date of filing of the petition till realisation instead of<\/p>\n
deducting interest for the period 4\/1\/1995 to 10\/11\/1998. The<\/p>\n
counsel contended that the tribunal erred in not awarding<\/p>\n
compensation towards loss of love & affection, funeral expenses,<\/p>\n
FAO No. 198\/2000                            Page 3 of 8<\/span>
\n loss of estate, mental pain and sufferings and the loss of services,<\/p>\n
which were being rendered by the deceased to the appellants.<\/p>\n
4.           Nobody has been appearing for the respondents.<\/p>\n
5.           I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and<\/p>\n
perused the record.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
6.           The appellant no.1 entered the witness box as a witness<\/p>\n
and deposed that the deceased was his son and was working at a<\/p>\n
flour Chakki shop and was earning Rs. 3,000 pm and used to give<\/p>\n
Rs. 2,000 at home. Nothing was brought on record to prove the<\/p>\n
above deposition; therefore the tribunal took aid of the Minimum<\/p>\n
Wages Act to assess the income of the deceased.\n<\/p>\n
\n7 .                It is no more res integra that mere bald assertions<\/p>\n
regarding the income of the deceased are of no help to the<\/p>\n
claimants in the absence of any reliable evidence being brought on<\/p>\n
record.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
8.            The thumb rule is that in the absence of clear and<\/p>\n
cogent evidence pertaining to income of the deceased learned<\/p>\n
Tribunal should determine income of the deceased on the basis of<\/p>\n
the minimum wages notified under the Minimum Wages Act.
\nFAO No. 198\/2000                               Page 4 of 8<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
 9.           After considering all these factors I am of the view that<\/p>\n
the tribunal has committed no error in assessing the income of the<\/p>\n
deceased in accordance with the Minimum Wages Act.<\/p>\n
10 .         As regards the future prospects I am of the view that<\/p>\n
there is no sufficient material on record to award future prospects.<\/p>\n
11 .         However, a perusal of the minimum wages notified<\/p>\n
under the Minimum Wages Act show that to neutralize increase in<\/p>\n
inflation and cost of living, minimum wages virtually double after<\/p>\n
every 10 years. Thus, it could safely be assumed that income of the<\/p>\n
deceased would have doubled in the next 10 years. Therefore, the<\/p>\n
tribunal erred in not awarding increase in minimum wages while<\/p>\n
computing compensation.\n<\/p>\n
\n12 .         As regards the contention of the counsel for the<\/p>\n
appellant that the tribunal has erred in applying the multiplier of 8<\/p>\n
in the facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that the tribunal<\/p>\n
has committed no error. This case pertains to the year 1992 and at<\/p>\n
that time II schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act was not brought on<\/p>\n
the statute books. The said schedule came on the statute book in<\/p>\n
the year 1994 and prior to 1994 the law of the land was as laid<\/p>\n
down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in 1994 SCC (Cri) 335, G.M.,<\/p>\n
FAO No. 198\/2000                             Page 5 of 8<\/span>
\n Kerala SRTC v. Susamma Thomas. In the<\/a> said judgment it was<\/p>\n
observed by the Court that maximum multiplier of 16 could be<\/p>\n
applied by the Courts, which after coming in to force of the II<\/p>\n
schedule has risen to 18. The age of the deceased at the time of<\/p>\n
the accident was 25 years and that of the claimant father was 55<\/p>\n
years. In the facts of the present case I am of the view that after<\/p>\n
looking at the age of the claimants and the deceased and also after<\/p>\n
considering the applicable multiplier under the M.V. Act & then<\/p>\n
taking a balanced view, the multiplier of 8 should have been<\/p>\n
applied. Therefore, in the facts of the instant case the multiplier of<\/p>\n
8 as awarded by the tribunal is not interfered.\n<\/p>\n
\n13 .         As regards the issue of interest that the rate of interest<\/p>\n
should have been awarded by the tribunal from the date of filing of<\/p>\n
the petition in place deducting interest for the period 4\/1\/1995 to<\/p>\n
10\/11\/1998. I feel that the deduction of the rate of interest awarded<\/p>\n
by the tribunal is unjust and unfair and requires no interference.<\/p>\n
The tribunal observed that the issues were framed on 4\/1\/1995,<\/p>\n
while appellant took a long time, almost 4 years, to conclude the<\/p>\n
evidence on 10\/11\/1998.\n<\/p>\n
14 .         On the contention regarding that the tribunal has erred<\/p>\n
in not granting adequate compensation towards loss of love &
\nFAO No. 198\/2000                              Page 6 of 8<\/span>
\n affection, funeral expenses and loss of estate, whereas, no<\/p>\n
compensation has been granted towards the loss of services, which<\/p>\n
were being rendered by the deceased to the appellants. In this<\/p>\n
regard compensation towards loss of love and affection is awarded<\/p>\n
at Rs. 20,000\/-; compensation towards funeral expenses is awarded<\/p>\n
at Rs. 5,000\/- and compensation towards loss of estate is awarded<\/p>\n
at Rs. 10,000\/-.   No compensation under other heads of damages<\/p>\n
can be allowed in the present case.\n<\/p>\n
\n15 .         On the basis of the above discussion, the income of the<\/p>\n
deceased would come to Rs. 1513.50 after doubling Rs. 1009 to Rs.<\/p>\n
2018 and after taking the mean of them. After making 1\/3 rd<\/p>\n
deductions the monthly loss of dependency comes to Rs. 1009 and<\/p>\n
the annual loss of dependency comes to Rs. 12108 per annum and<\/p>\n
after applying multiplier of 8 it comes to Rs. 96864\/-. Thus, the total<\/p>\n
loss of dependency comes to Rs. 96864\/-. After considering Rs.<\/p>\n
35,000\/-, which is granted towards non-pecuniary damages, the<\/p>\n
total compensation comes out as Rs. 1,31,864\/-.<\/p>\n
16 .         In view of the above discussion, the total compensation<\/p>\n
is enhanced to Rs. 1,31,864\/- from Rs. 66,608\/- with interest @ 12%<\/p>\n
per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realisation but<\/p>\n
FAO No. 198\/2000                             Page 7 of 8<\/span>
\n excluding the period from 4\/1\/1995 to 10\/11\/1998 and the same<\/p>\n
should be paid to the appellants       in equal proportion by the<\/p>\n
respondent insurance company.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      With the above directions, the present appeal is disposed of.<\/p>\n
13.4.2009                              KAILASH GAMBHIR, J\n\n\n\n\nFAO No. 198\/2000                            Page 8 of 8<\/span>\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court Harish Chand & Ors. vs Balkishan And Others on 13 April, 2009 Author: Kailash Gambhir IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI FAO. No.198\/2000 Judgment reserved on: 7.1.2008 Judgment delivered on: 13.4.2009 Harish Chand & Ors. ….. Appellants. Through: Mr. J.S. Kanwar, Advocate versus Balkishan and Others ….. Respondents Through: […]<\/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":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-113888","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nHarish Chand & Ors. vs Balkishan And Others on 13 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & 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\/harish-chand-ors-vs-balkishan-and-others-on-13-april-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Harish Chand & Ors. vs Balkishan And Others on 13 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harish-chand-ors-vs-balkishan-and-others-on-13-april-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-04-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-08-04T07:50:46+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/harish-chand-ors-vs-balkishan-and-others-on-13-april-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/harish-chand-ors-vs-balkishan-and-others-on-13-april-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Harish Chand & Ors. vs Balkishan And Others on 13 April, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-04-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-04T07:50:46+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/harish-chand-ors-vs-balkishan-and-others-on-13-april-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1367,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Delhi High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/harish-chand-ors-vs-balkishan-and-others-on-13-april-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/harish-chand-ors-vs-balkishan-and-others-on-13-april-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/harish-chand-ors-vs-balkishan-and-others-on-13-april-2009\",\"name\":\"Harish Chand & Ors. vs Balkishan And Others on 13 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-04-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-04T07:50:46+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/harish-chand-ors-vs-balkishan-and-others-on-13-april-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/harish-chand-ors-vs-balkishan-and-others-on-13-april-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/harish-chand-ors-vs-balkishan-and-others-on-13-april-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Harish Chand & Ors. vs Balkishan And Others on 13 April, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"Harish Chand & Ors. vs Balkishan And Others on 13 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & 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\/harish-chand-ors-vs-balkishan-and-others-on-13-april-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Harish Chand & Ors. vs Balkishan And Others on 13 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harish-chand-ors-vs-balkishan-and-others-on-13-april-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-04-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-08-04T07:50:46+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harish-chand-ors-vs-balkishan-and-others-on-13-april-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harish-chand-ors-vs-balkishan-and-others-on-13-april-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Harish Chand & Ors. vs Balkishan And Others on 13 April, 2009","datePublished":"2009-04-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-04T07:50:46+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harish-chand-ors-vs-balkishan-and-others-on-13-april-2009"},"wordCount":1367,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Delhi High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harish-chand-ors-vs-balkishan-and-others-on-13-april-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harish-chand-ors-vs-balkishan-and-others-on-13-april-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harish-chand-ors-vs-balkishan-and-others-on-13-april-2009","name":"Harish Chand & Ors. vs Balkishan And Others on 13 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-04-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-04T07:50:46+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harish-chand-ors-vs-balkishan-and-others-on-13-april-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harish-chand-ors-vs-balkishan-and-others-on-13-april-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harish-chand-ors-vs-balkishan-and-others-on-13-april-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Harish Chand & Ors. vs Balkishan And Others on 13 April, 2009"}]},{"@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\/113888","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=113888"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/113888\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=113888"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=113888"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=113888"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}