{"id":130705,"date":"2010-05-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-05-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sahana-siddique-ors-vs-dharm-vir-ors-on-26-may-2010"},"modified":"2016-12-22T06:32:35","modified_gmt":"2016-12-22T01:02:35","slug":"sahana-siddique-ors-vs-dharm-vir-ors-on-26-may-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sahana-siddique-ors-vs-dharm-vir-ors-on-26-may-2010","title":{"rendered":"Sahana Siddique & Ors. vs Dharm Vir & Ors. on 26 May, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court<\/div>\n
Sahana Siddique & Ors. vs Dharm Vir & Ors. on 26 May, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: Shiv Narayan Dhingra<\/div>\n
                * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI\n\n                                                      Date of Reserve: 20th April, 2010\n                                                         Date of Order: 26th May, 2010\n+ FAO No. 188\/1990\n%                                                                      26.5.2010\n\n        Sahana Siddique & Ors.                                ... Appellants\n                                            Through: Mr. Navneet Goyal, Advocate\n\n                Versus\n\n\n        Dharm Vir & Ors.                                       ... Respondents\n                                            Through: Mr. S.H.Paul, Advocate for R-3\n\n\nJUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA\n\n1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?\n\n2. To be referred to the reporter or not?\n\n3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?\n\nJUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
                The present appeal has been filed by the claimants assailing award<\/p>\n
dated 26th March, 1990 passed by the learned Tribunal awarding a compensation of<\/p>\n
Rs.4,80,000\/- to the claimants.             The award is assailed on the ground of the<\/p>\n
inadequacy of the compensation as well as on the issue decided by the Tribunal that<\/p>\n
the liability of the Insurance Company was only limited to the tune of Rs.50,000\/-.<\/p>\n
2.              Undisputed facts are that the deceased was aged 38 years at the time<\/p>\n
of accident. He was working with Saudi Airlines as a supervisor and drawing a salary<\/p>\n
of Rs.3894\/- p.m. He was receiving Rs.250\/- as HRA and meal allowance of Rs.20\/-<\/p>\n
per day. At the time of death he left behind a wife, two sons, one daughter and aged<\/p>\n
mother, dependent on him. The Tribunal considered the income tax payable by the<\/p>\n
deceased and looking into his post of supervisory cadre observed that he would have<\/p>\n
to maintain a reasonable standard of living so dependency of the claimants would be<\/p>\n
 FAO No. 188\/1990                                                            Page 1 of 6<\/span>
\n around Rs.2500\/-.         The Tribunal applied a multiplier of 16 and awarded<\/p>\n
compensation of Rs.4,80,000\/- [2500 X 12 X 16].\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
3.             The insurance policy of the offending vehicle i.e. taxi was placed on<\/p>\n
record. The insurance company took a stand that its liability was limited only to<\/p>\n
Rs.50,000\/-. This stand was accepted by the Tribunal since the owner failed to prove<\/p>\n
original policy of insurance on record. The insurance company placed on record the<\/p>\n
carbon copy showing that premium paid by owner towards third party liability was<\/p>\n
Rs.120\/-. The Tribunal held that the liability of the Insurance Company was limited to<\/p>\n
the extent of Rs.50,000\/-. Thus, the learned Tribunal ordered that out of the amount<\/p>\n
awarded, the insurance company would be liable to pay only Rs.50,000\/- and rest of<\/p>\n
the amount shall be payable by respondents no. 1 & 2 i.e. owner & driver jointly and<\/p>\n
severally.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
4.             It is submitted by the Counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal did<\/p>\n
not apply correct parameters for calculating compensation. The Tribunal had not<\/p>\n
taken into account future prospects of the deceased. The deceased was a promising<\/p>\n
young man employed in airlines and had a very bright future. The Tribunal also<\/p>\n
wrongly deducted Rs.1,000\/- out of income towards personal expenses since the<\/p>\n
number of dependents in this case were five. The deduction of 1\/3rd amount was too<\/p>\n
high. It is also submitted that the Tribunal wrongly applied multiplier of 16 and a<\/p>\n
higher multiplier should have been applied. Reliance is placed on Sarla Verma &<\/p>\n
Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr.<\/a> 2009 ACJ 1298. Regarding liability of the<\/p>\n
Insurance Company, it is submitted that the premium in this case paid by the owner<\/p>\n
did not show that the liability of the company was limited.       It is submitted that<\/p>\n
premium of Rs.120\/- covered entire third party liability. The premium for ‘Act Only’<\/p>\n
liability was Rs.100\/- and not Rs.120\/- and therefore, the Tribunal went wrong in<\/p>\n
holding that the liability of the Insurance Company was limited to Rs.50,000\/-<\/p>\n
 FAO No. 188\/1990                                                          Page 2 of 6<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
 5.             The Counsel for the respondent\/Insurance Company has supported<\/p>\n
the order of the Tribunal on both counts and stated that the Tribunal rightly calculated<\/p>\n
the compensation and rightly held that the liability of the Insurance Company was<\/p>\n
limited to Rs.50,000\/-.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
6.             In Sarla Verma’s case (supra), the Supreme Court had considered<\/p>\n
various judgments being followed by Tribunals and High Courts and laid down that<\/p>\n
the compensation should be calculated uniformly by all the Tribunals and uniform<\/p>\n
parameters should be applied. It should not be that different parameters are applied<\/p>\n
by the different Tribunals resulting into award of different compensations under same<\/p>\n
circumstances by different Tribunals in the country.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
7.             As per parameters laid down in Sarla Verma’s case (supra), the<\/p>\n
deduction in this case should have been 1\/4th and the multiplier should have been 15.<\/p>\n
The salary to be taken into consideration has to be the gross salary of the deceased<\/p>\n
less income tax. The gross salary of the deceased was Rs.3894\/-.              If HRA of<\/p>\n
Rs.250\/- is added, his salary would be Rs.4144\/-. A sum of Rs.725\/- p.m. was being<\/p>\n
deducted as tax at source, so his salary after income tax would come to Rs.3419\/-<\/p>\n
say Rs.3420\/-. I consider the meal amounts were personal to the deceased and<\/p>\n
could not be considered as part of his income. Since the deceased was working in<\/p>\n
airlines his timings would have to varying with the flight timings and in case of flights<\/p>\n
getting delayed he had to put more time and had to take meals at the airport itself.<\/p>\n
Thus, the salary for the purpose of compensation has to be taken as Rs.3420\/-          If<\/p>\n
1\/4th of the salary is deducted as personal expenses in terms of Sarla Verma’s case<\/p>\n
(supra), the dependency would be Rs.2565\/-. As the deceased was below 40 years<\/p>\n
of age at the time of his death, 50% of the monthly dependency has to be added<\/p>\n
towards future prospects.     Thus, by adding Rs.1282\/- to Rs.2565\/- the monthly<\/p>\n
income for the purpose of computing compensation comes to Rs.3847\/-. By applying<\/p>\n
a multiplier of 15, the compensation payable to the dependents would be<\/p>\n
Rs.6.92,460\/ [3847 X 12 X 15]. I think that the appellants would also be entitled for<\/p>\n
 FAO No. 188\/1990                                                            Page 3 of 6<\/span>
\n non-pecuniary damages and Rs.2,000\/- for funeral expenses, Rs.5000 each for loss<\/p>\n
of consortium and loss of estate should also be added. Thus, the total compensation<\/p>\n
payable to the deceased would be Rs.704,460\/- plus interest. I think 8% p.a. simple<\/p>\n
interest would be just and reasonable.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
7.            The other issue which arises is whether the liability of Insurance<\/p>\n
Company was limited to Rs.50,000\/- or it was unlimited.          This issue has been<\/p>\n
considered by this Court at length in Neeta Trehan & Ors. v. Gopal Krishan & Ors.<\/p>\n
FAO No. 257\/1991 decided on 17.5.2010 and this Court observed as under:<\/p>\n
              14.     The issue arises whether this insurance cover obtained by
\n              the insured was limited to a liability of Rs.1,50,000\/- being the
\n              minimum liability for which a vehicle was required to be insured by
\n              the owner or this premium covered wider liability. Counsel for the
\n              appellants has drawn my attention to the judgment in Veena
\n              Pruthi’s case (supra) given by the Division Bench of this court
\n              where the Division Bench of this court held that if the premium
\n              was Rs.125\/-, the liability would be limited to Rs.1,50,000\/- and
\n              not unlimited. On the same logic it is stated that if the premium
\n              was Rs.240\/- for class A(2) vehicle, the liability of insurance
\n              company would be limited to Rs.1,50,000\/-.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              15.     Where obtaining of an insurance cover is made mandatory
\n              by statute, the contract is to be interpreted in the light of statutory
\n              provisions. In case of motor vehicles, obtaining of an insurance
\n              cover by the owners of vehicles is a statutory requirement. Thus,
\n              an insurance policy has to be interpreted keeping in view the
\n              statutory provisions and the rules of tariff as framed by the
\n              Advisory Board. Under the tariff rules, two separate tariffs are
\n              provided for ‘Act Only Liability’ and for ‘Public Risk’. It cannot be
\n              said that the Advisory Board provided tariff for ‘Act Only Liability’
\n              as a superfluous phenomenon. The Advisory Board was having in
\n              mind that where the owner wants to take an insurance policy
\n              covering the minimum liability under Section 95 of the Act, then
\n              the premium should be different. If the owner wants wider liability
\n              then the premium should be different and that is the reason that
\n              for ‘Act Only Liability’, a premium of Rs.200\/- was provided and for
\n              ‘Public Risk’, a premium of Rs.240\/- was provided. Public risk is a
\n              wider term and takes into account the entire risk faced by the
\n              owner for bringing vehicle on road. If there had been no
\n              compulsion under the Act to obtain an insurance policy, the only
\n              insurance cover which owner could have obtained from an
\n              insurance company for covering public risk would have been this
\n              that he would pay Rs.240\/- and get the public risk covered. If the
\n              Act would have not prescribed any limit, the public risk would
\n              naturally have been unlimited. The Act prescribed that every
\n              owner of vehicle should get insurance cover covering a minimum<\/p>\n
 FAO No. 188\/1990                                                            Page 4 of 6<\/span>
\n               amount. Beyond that, the Act did not provide anything. It is under
\n              these circumstances that the Tariff Advisory Committee
\n              prescribed separate premium for ‘Act Only Policy’ and separate
\n              premium for a ‘Public Risk Policy’. I, therefore, consider that the
\n              ‘Public Risk’ premium would cover unlimited amount of risk and
\n              would not cover a limited amount of risk.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                      x      x       x      x       x      x<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
              17.     It is urged by the counsel for the insurance company that
\n              for covering unlimited liability, an additional premium of Rs.100\/-
\n              was to be paid for class A(2) vehicles as is given in paragraph 11
\n              of the tariffs Ex. RW 1\/6. A perusal of Ex. RW 1\/6 would show
\n              that while prescribing additional premium for each kind of vehicle,
\n              the additional premium is payable for property damage and not
\n              for personal injury.      The personal injury has been written as
\n              unlimited. It is only quantum of property damage which keeps on
\n              rising with the increase in premium and additional premium of
\n              Rs.100\/- is to be paid when additional risk for property damage to
\n              be covered. Thus, Rs.100\/-, additional premium, has nothing to
\n              do with the risk to life of third parties.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              18.     There is another aspect to be kept in mind. When an
\n              owner approaches insurance agent for insurance, he is told what
\n              would be the tariff payable by him and on payment of tariff, an
\n              insurance certificate or cover note is issued. The contract of
\n              insurance, thus, stands concluded on receipt of tariff\/premium in
\n              terms of the tariff schedule as laid down by Advisory Board.
\n              Insurance policy is subsequently mailed to owner by insurance
\n              company. If insurance company unilaterally inserts a clause in
\n              the policy which is contrary to tariff regulations, such a clause is
\n              not binding. All insurance policies are in the shape of one
\n              standard performa used for different kinds of coverage. If while
\n              sending insurance policy to owner the company official does not
\n              score off non-applicable clauses or inserts a limited liability
\n              clause which is contrary to the tariff charged from owner, such a
\n              clause is not binding.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              19.     I, therefore, consider that the liability of insurance
\n              company in this case was unlimited and not limited since the
\n              insured had paid tariff\/premium of Rs.240\/- for liability to ‘Public
\n              Risk’ and not Rs.200\/- for ‘Act Only Liability’.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
8.            In my opinion, the liability of the Insurance Company has to be seen<\/p>\n
from the premium charged, in the light of the tariff prescribed by the Advisory Board.<\/p>\n
 FAO No. 188\/1990                                                          Page 5 of 6<\/span>
\n The tariff provisions in case of vehicles carrying passengers for hire, specially taxis or<\/p>\n
private cars are provided in Class B(2). The tariff provisions for public risks as under:<\/p>\n
               Own Damage                             Liability to the              Act Only\n                                                      Pubic Risks                   Liability\n<\/pre>\n
               ————————————————————————————-\n<\/p>\n
               Rs.2.75 plus 0.75%                     Rs.120\/-                      Rs.100\/-\n               On I.E.V.\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
9.             A perusal of carbon copy of the policy placed by Insurance Company<\/p>\n
on record would show that the Insurance Company had charged Rs.120\/- for third<\/p>\n
party insurance. Under tariff provisions, the premium for the ‘Act Only’ liability was<\/p>\n
Rs.100\/- and not Rs.120\/-. Rs.120\/- was premium for liability to the public risks and<\/p>\n
no limit is provided under the tariff provisions for this risk. The limits are there only<\/p>\n
where ‘Act Only’ liability is covered.        I therefore, consider that in this case Tribunal<\/p>\n
wrongly came to the conclusion that since the premium of Rs.120\/- was charged, the<\/p>\n
liability of the insurance company would be limited to Rs.50,000\/- which is the main<\/p>\n
liability for which an insurance cover is to be obtained under the Motor Vehicles Act.<\/p>\n
The liability of the Insurance Company would have been limited to Rs.50,000\/- if and<\/p>\n
only if, the Insurance Company had charged premium of Rs.100\/- under the tariff<\/p>\n
provisions.   Since the Insurance Company had not charged Rs.100\/- but had<\/p>\n
charged premium of Rs.120\/-, the plea of Insurance Company that its liability was<\/p>\n
limited to Rs.50,000\/- does not stand. I, therefore, hold that liability of the Insurance<\/p>\n
Company was unlimited and the entire compensation is payable by the Insurance<\/p>\n
Company.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
               The appeal is allowed in above terms.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
May 26, 2010                                          SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J.\nvn\n\n\n\n\n FAO No. 188\/1990                                                                             Page 6 of 6<\/span>\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court Sahana Siddique & Ors. vs Dharm Vir & Ors. on 26 May, 2010 Author: Shiv Narayan Dhingra * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Reserve: 20th April, 2010 Date of Order: 26th May, 2010 + FAO No. 188\/1990 % 26.5.2010 Sahana Siddique & Ors. … Appellants 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-130705","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSahana Siddique & Ors. vs Dharm Vir & Ors. on 26 May, 2010 - 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\/sahana-siddique-ors-vs-dharm-vir-ors-on-26-may-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sahana Siddique & Ors. vs Dharm Vir & Ors. on 26 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sahana-siddique-ors-vs-dharm-vir-ors-on-26-may-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-05-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-12-22T01:02:35+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sahana-siddique-ors-vs-dharm-vir-ors-on-26-may-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sahana-siddique-ors-vs-dharm-vir-ors-on-26-may-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sahana Siddique & Ors. vs Dharm Vir & Ors. on 26 May, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-05-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-22T01:02:35+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sahana-siddique-ors-vs-dharm-vir-ors-on-26-may-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2086,\"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\/sahana-siddique-ors-vs-dharm-vir-ors-on-26-may-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sahana-siddique-ors-vs-dharm-vir-ors-on-26-may-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sahana-siddique-ors-vs-dharm-vir-ors-on-26-may-2010\",\"name\":\"Sahana Siddique & Ors. vs Dharm Vir & Ors. on 26 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-05-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-22T01:02:35+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sahana-siddique-ors-vs-dharm-vir-ors-on-26-may-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sahana-siddique-ors-vs-dharm-vir-ors-on-26-may-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sahana-siddique-ors-vs-dharm-vir-ors-on-26-may-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sahana Siddique & Ors. vs Dharm Vir & Ors. on 26 May, 2010\"}]},{\"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"Sahana Siddique & Ors. vs Dharm Vir & Ors. on 26 May, 2010 - 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\/sahana-siddique-ors-vs-dharm-vir-ors-on-26-may-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sahana Siddique & Ors. vs Dharm Vir & Ors. on 26 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sahana-siddique-ors-vs-dharm-vir-ors-on-26-may-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-05-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-12-22T01:02:35+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sahana-siddique-ors-vs-dharm-vir-ors-on-26-may-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sahana-siddique-ors-vs-dharm-vir-ors-on-26-may-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sahana Siddique & Ors. vs Dharm Vir & Ors. on 26 May, 2010","datePublished":"2010-05-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-22T01:02:35+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sahana-siddique-ors-vs-dharm-vir-ors-on-26-may-2010"},"wordCount":2086,"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\/sahana-siddique-ors-vs-dharm-vir-ors-on-26-may-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sahana-siddique-ors-vs-dharm-vir-ors-on-26-may-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sahana-siddique-ors-vs-dharm-vir-ors-on-26-may-2010","name":"Sahana Siddique & Ors. vs Dharm Vir & Ors. on 26 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-05-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-22T01:02:35+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sahana-siddique-ors-vs-dharm-vir-ors-on-26-may-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sahana-siddique-ors-vs-dharm-vir-ors-on-26-may-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sahana-siddique-ors-vs-dharm-vir-ors-on-26-may-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sahana Siddique & Ors. vs Dharm Vir & Ors. on 26 May, 2010"}]},{"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/130705","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=130705"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/130705\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=130705"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=130705"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=130705"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}