{"id":127540,"date":"2009-04-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-04-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-bandana-kumari-ors-vs-sh-imtiaz-ors-on-20-april-2009"},"modified":"2018-12-13T03:39:12","modified_gmt":"2018-12-12T22:09:12","slug":"smt-bandana-kumari-ors-vs-sh-imtiaz-ors-on-20-april-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-bandana-kumari-ors-vs-sh-imtiaz-ors-on-20-april-2009","title":{"rendered":"Smt.Bandana Kumari & Ors. vs Sh Imtiaz & Ors on 20 April, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court<\/div>\n
Smt.Bandana Kumari & Ors. vs Sh Imtiaz & Ors on 20 April, 2009<\/div>\n
Author: Kailash Gambhir<\/div>\n
     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI\n\n                     FAO No. 436\/1999\n\n                     Judgment reserved on 11.2.2008\n\n                     Judgment delivered on: 20.4.2009\n\n\nSmt. Bandana Kumari & Ors.             ..... Appellants.\n                 Through: Mr.O.P. Mannie, Adv.\n\n                     Versus\n\nSh Imtiaz & Ors.                           ..... Respondent\n                     Through: Nemo.\n\nCORAM:\nHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR,\n\n1.    Whether the Reporters of local papers may            No\n      be allowed to see the judgment?\n\n2.    To be referred to Reporter or not?                   No\n\n3.    Whether the judgment should be reported\n      in the Digest?                                       No\n\n\nKAILASH GAMBHIR, J.\n<\/pre>\n
1.    The present appeal arises out of the award dated 25\/6\/1999<\/p>\n
of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whereby the Tribunal<\/p>\n
awarded a sum of Rs. 5,94,000\/- along with interest @ 10% per<\/p>\n
annum to the claimants.\n<\/p>\n
FAO No. 436\/99                                          Page 1 of 8<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
 2.   The brief conspectus of the facts is as follows:<\/p>\n
3.   On the night intervening 4\/5.3.1995 Sh. Raj Kumar Minhas<\/p>\n
was going on his two wheeler scooter bearing registration no. UP<\/p>\n
14 B 0433 at about 12:00 a.m. suddenly a truck bearing<\/p>\n
registration no. DL 1L A5652 being driven rashly and negligently<\/p>\n
by its driver hit the said scooter. Resultantly, Sh. Raj Kumar fell<\/p>\n
on the road and died instantly.\n<\/p>\n
4.   A claim petition was filed on 12\/7\/1995 and an award was<\/p>\n
passed    on     25\/6\/1999.   Aggrieved   with   the    said     award<\/p>\n
enhancement is claimed by way of the present appeal.<\/p>\n
5.   Sh. O.P. Mannie counsel for the appellants contended that<\/p>\n
the tribunal erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.<\/p>\n
4,950\/- per month whereas after looking at the facts and<\/p>\n
circumstances of the case the tribunal should have assessed the<\/p>\n
income of the deceased at Rs. 8,000\/- per month. The counsel<\/p>\n
further maintained that the tribunal erred in making the<\/p>\n
deduction to the tune of 1\/3rd of the income of the deceased<\/p>\n
towards personal expenses when the deceased was supporting a<\/p>\n
large family at the time of accident and is survived by his widow,<\/p>\n
son and aged parents. The counsel submitted that the tribunal<\/p>\n
FAO No. 436\/99                                                 Page 2 of 8<\/span>
\n erroneously      applied   the   multiplier of   15   while     computing<\/p>\n
compensation when according to the facts and circumstances of<\/p>\n
the case multiplier of 17 should have been applied. It was urged<\/p>\n
by the counsel that the tribunal erred in not considering future<\/p>\n
prospects     while   computing     compensation      as   it   failed   to<\/p>\n
appreciate that the deceased would have earned much more in<\/p>\n
near future as he was of 33 years of age only and would have<\/p>\n
lived for another 30-40 years had he not met with the accident. It<\/p>\n
was also alleged by the counsel that the tribunal did not consider<\/p>\n
the fact that due to high rates of inflation the deceased would<\/p>\n
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 his life span. The counsel also raised the<\/p>\n
contention that the rate of interest allowed by the tribunal is on<\/p>\n
the lower side and the tribunal should have allowed simple<\/p>\n
interest @ 12% per annum in place of only 10% per annum. The<\/p>\n
counsel contended that the tribunal erred in not awarding<\/p>\n
compensation towards loss of love & affection, funeral expenses,<\/p>\n
loss of estate, loss of consortium, mental pain and sufferings and<\/p>\n
FAO No. 436\/99                                                   Page 3 of 8<\/span>
\n the loss of services, which were being rendered by the deceased<\/p>\n
to the appellants.\n<\/p>\n
6.   Nobody appeared for the respondents.\n<\/p>\n
7.   I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused<\/p>\n
the record.\n<\/p>\n
8.   As regards income, the appellants case is that the deceased<\/p>\n
was drawing a salary of Rs. 8,000\/- pm. Sh. Shashi Shanker<\/p>\n
Prasad PW4 submitted that the deceased used to receive<\/p>\n
consolidated salary of Rs. 8,000\/- p.m. out of which Rs. 4350\/-<\/p>\n
was his basic and other amount was paid towards HRA; telephone<\/p>\n
allowance;       reading    allowance;    news      gatherings;     medical<\/p>\n
reimbursements       etc.   As   per   PW4\/2      salary   certificate,   the<\/p>\n
deceased was earning Rs. 5655\/- pm including HRA. After<\/p>\n
considering all these factors, I am of the view that the tribunal<\/p>\n
has not erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.<\/p>\n
4950\/- per month after considering the said salary certificate and<\/p>\n
making    deductions        towards      income     tax.   Therefore,     no<\/p>\n
interference is made in relation to income of the deceased by this<\/p>\n
court.\n<\/p>\n
9.   As regards the future prospects, I am of the view that there<\/p>\n
is no sufficient material on record to award future prospects also,<\/p>\n
FAO No. 436\/99                                                     Page 4 of 8<\/span>
\n since the deceased was working as a private employee and since<\/p>\n
salary in private sector is fluctuating, therefore, I feel that the<\/p>\n
tribunal committed no error in not granting future prospects in<\/p>\n
the facts and circumstances of the case.\n<\/p>\n
10.   As regards the contention of the counsel for the appellant<\/p>\n
that the 1\/3 deduction made by the tribunal are on the higher<\/p>\n
side as the deceased is survived by his widow, aged parents and<\/p>\n
a son. Considering the facts of the case, I am inclined to interfere<\/p>\n
with the award on this ground and modify the award by<\/p>\n
deducting 1\/4 towards personal expenses of the deceased.<\/p>\n
11.   As regards the contention of the counsel for the appellant<\/p>\n
that the tribunal erred in applying the multiplier of 15 in the facts<\/p>\n
and circumstances of the case, I feel that the tribunal has<\/p>\n
committed error. This case pertains to the year 1995 and by that<\/p>\n
time II schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act had already been<\/p>\n
brought on the statute book. The age of the deceased at the time<\/p>\n
of the accident was 33 years and he is survived by his widow,<\/p>\n
aged parents and a son. In the facts of the present case, I am of<\/p>\n
the view that after looking at the age of the claimants and the<\/p>\n
deceased and after considering the multiplier applicable as per<\/p>\n
FAO No. 436\/99                                              Page 5 of 8<\/span>
\n the II Schedule to the MV Act, the multiplier of 17 shall be<\/p>\n
applicable.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
12.   As regards the issue of interest that the rate of interest of<\/p>\n
10% p.a. awarded by the tribunal is on the lower side and the<\/p>\n
same should be enhanced to 12% p.a., I feel that the rate of<\/p>\n
interest awarded by the tribunal is just and fair and requires no<\/p>\n
interference. No rate of interest is fixed under Section 171 of the<\/p>\n
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Interest is compensation for<\/p>\n
forbearance or detention of money and that interest is awarded<\/p>\n
to a party only for being kept out of the money, which ought to<\/p>\n
have been paid to him. Time and again the Hon’ble Supreme<\/p>\n
Court has held that the rate of interest to be awarded should be<\/p>\n
just and fair depending upon the facts and circumstances of the<\/p>\n
case and taking in to consideration relevant factors including<\/p>\n
inflation, policy being adopted by Reserve Bank of India from<\/p>\n
time to time and other economic factors. In the facts and<\/p>\n
circumstances of the case, I do not find any infirmity in the award<\/p>\n
regarding award of interest @ 10% pa by the tribunal and the<\/p>\n
same is not interfered with.\n<\/p>\n
FAO No. 436\/99                                            Page 6 of 8<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
 13.   On the contention regarding that the tribunal has erred in<\/p>\n
not granting compensation towards loss of love & affection,<\/p>\n
funeral expenses, loss of estate, loss of consortium and the loss<\/p>\n
of services, which were being rendered by the deceased to the<\/p>\n
appellants, in this regard compensation towards loss of love and<\/p>\n
affection is awarded at Rs. 30,000\/-; compensation towards<\/p>\n
funeral expenses is awarded at Rs. 10,000\/- and compensation<\/p>\n
towards loss of estate is awarded at Rs. 10,000\/-. Further, Rs.<\/p>\n
50,000\/- is awarded towards loss of consortium.<\/p>\n
14.   As far as the contention pertaining to the awarding of<\/p>\n
amount towards mental pain and sufferings caused to the<\/p>\n
appellants due to the sudden demise of the deceased and the<\/p>\n
loss of services, which were being rendered by the deceased to<\/p>\n
the appellants is concerned, I do not feel inclined to award any<\/p>\n
amount as compensation towards the same as the same are not<\/p>\n
conventional heads of damages.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
15.   On the basis of the discussion, the income of the deceased<\/p>\n
comes to Rs. 4,950\/- and after making 1\/4 deductions the<\/p>\n
monthly loss of dependency comes to Rs. 3,712.50\/- and the<\/p>\n
annual loss of dependency comes to Rs. 44,550\/- per annum and<\/p>\n
FAO No. 436\/99                                          Page 7 of 8<\/span>
\n after applying multiplier of 17 it comes to Rs. 7,57,350\/-. Thus,<\/p>\n
the total loss of dependency comes to Rs. 7,57,350\/-. After<\/p>\n
considering Rs. 1,00,000\/-, which is granted towards non-<\/p>\n
pecuniary damages, the total compensation comes out as Rs.<\/p>\n
8,57,350\/-.\n<\/p>\n
16.   In view of the above discussion, the total compensation is<\/p>\n
enhanced to Rs. 8,57,350\/- from Rs. 5,94,000\/- with interest on<\/p>\n
the differential amount @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing<\/p>\n
of the petition till realisation and the same should be paid to the<\/p>\n
appellants by the respondent insurance company in the same<\/p>\n
proportion as awarded by the tribunal.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
17.   With the above directions, the present appeal is disposed<\/p>\n
of.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
20.4.2009                                KAILASH GAMBHIR,J.\n\n\n\n\nFAO No. 436\/99                                            Page 8 of 8<\/span>\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court Smt.Bandana Kumari & Ors. vs Sh Imtiaz & Ors on 20 April, 2009 Author: Kailash Gambhir IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI FAO No. 436\/1999 Judgment reserved on 11.2.2008 Judgment delivered on: 20.4.2009 Smt. Bandana Kumari & Ors. ….. Appellants. Through: Mr.O.P. Mannie, Adv. Versus Sh Imtiaz & Ors. […]<\/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-127540","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSmt.Bandana Kumari & Ors. vs Sh Imtiaz & Ors on 20 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\/smt-bandana-kumari-ors-vs-sh-imtiaz-ors-on-20-april-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Smt.Bandana Kumari & Ors. vs Sh Imtiaz & Ors on 20 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-bandana-kumari-ors-vs-sh-imtiaz-ors-on-20-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=\"2009-04-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-12-12T22:09:12+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\\\/smt-bandana-kumari-ors-vs-sh-imtiaz-ors-on-20-april-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-bandana-kumari-ors-vs-sh-imtiaz-ors-on-20-april-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Smt.Bandana Kumari & Ors. vs Sh Imtiaz & Ors on 20 April, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-04-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-12T22:09:12+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-bandana-kumari-ors-vs-sh-imtiaz-ors-on-20-april-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1404,\"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\\\/smt-bandana-kumari-ors-vs-sh-imtiaz-ors-on-20-april-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-bandana-kumari-ors-vs-sh-imtiaz-ors-on-20-april-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-bandana-kumari-ors-vs-sh-imtiaz-ors-on-20-april-2009\",\"name\":\"Smt.Bandana Kumari & Ors. vs Sh Imtiaz & Ors on 20 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-04-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-12T22:09:12+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-bandana-kumari-ors-vs-sh-imtiaz-ors-on-20-april-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-bandana-kumari-ors-vs-sh-imtiaz-ors-on-20-april-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-bandana-kumari-ors-vs-sh-imtiaz-ors-on-20-april-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Smt.Bandana Kumari & Ors. vs Sh Imtiaz & Ors on 20 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":"Smt.Bandana Kumari & Ors. vs Sh Imtiaz & Ors on 20 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\/smt-bandana-kumari-ors-vs-sh-imtiaz-ors-on-20-april-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Smt.Bandana Kumari & Ors. vs Sh Imtiaz & Ors on 20 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-bandana-kumari-ors-vs-sh-imtiaz-ors-on-20-april-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-04-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-12-12T22:09:12+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\/smt-bandana-kumari-ors-vs-sh-imtiaz-ors-on-20-april-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-bandana-kumari-ors-vs-sh-imtiaz-ors-on-20-april-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Smt.Bandana Kumari & Ors. vs Sh Imtiaz & Ors on 20 April, 2009","datePublished":"2009-04-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-12T22:09:12+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-bandana-kumari-ors-vs-sh-imtiaz-ors-on-20-april-2009"},"wordCount":1404,"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\/smt-bandana-kumari-ors-vs-sh-imtiaz-ors-on-20-april-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-bandana-kumari-ors-vs-sh-imtiaz-ors-on-20-april-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-bandana-kumari-ors-vs-sh-imtiaz-ors-on-20-april-2009","name":"Smt.Bandana Kumari & Ors. vs Sh Imtiaz & Ors on 20 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-04-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-12T22:09:12+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-bandana-kumari-ors-vs-sh-imtiaz-ors-on-20-april-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-bandana-kumari-ors-vs-sh-imtiaz-ors-on-20-april-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-bandana-kumari-ors-vs-sh-imtiaz-ors-on-20-april-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Smt.Bandana Kumari & Ors. vs Sh Imtiaz & Ors on 20 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\/127540","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=127540"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/127540\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=127540"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=127540"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=127540"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}