{"id":131941,"date":"1997-07-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1997-07-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajasthan-state-road-transport-vs-smt-poonam-pahwa-and-ors-on-9-july-1997"},"modified":"2019-03-31T09:14:48","modified_gmt":"2019-03-31T03:44:48","slug":"rajasthan-state-road-transport-vs-smt-poonam-pahwa-and-ors-on-9-july-1997","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajasthan-state-road-transport-vs-smt-poonam-pahwa-and-ors-on-9-july-1997","title":{"rendered":"Rajasthan State Road Transport … vs Smt. Poonam Pahwa And Ors on 9 July, 1997"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Rajasthan State Road Transport … vs Smt. Poonam Pahwa And Ors on 9 July, 1997<\/div>\n
Author: G Ray<\/div>\n
Bench: G. N. Ray, G. T. Nanavati<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nRAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, JAIPUR\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSMT. POONAM PAHWA AND ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t09\/07\/1997\n\nBENCH:\nG. N. RAY, G. T. NANAVATI\n\n\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
PRESENT:\n<\/p>\n
\t\tHon’ble Mr. Justice G.N. Ray
\n\t\tHon’ble Mr. Justice G.T. Nanavati
\nDr. Rajeev  Dhawan, Sr. Adv (A.C.), Gopal Singh, Anis Ahmad,
\nSushil Kumar Jain, Advs. with him for the appellant
\nD.P. Mukherjee,\t Adv.(Ms. Lalita  Kaushik) Adv. (NP) for the
\nRespondents. Nos.4-6
\n\t\t      J U D G M E N T
\nThe following Judgment of the Court was delivered:
\nG.N. RAY, J.\n<\/p>\n
     Leave granted. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
\n     The question  that calls for the decision of this Court
\nis whether  Order XXI  Rule 1 (2) Code of Civil Procedure is
\napplicable in  respect of the claim under Section 110 [c] of
\nthe Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and whether it was justified in
\nawarding interest  on the decretal amount from June 26, 1986
\n(the date  of deposit  of the  decretal amount\tin court) to
\nApril 19,  1989 (when  decree holder  came to know about the
\ndeposit of the amount)?\n<\/p>\n
     The relevant facts of the case are that an accident had
\ntaken place  May 7,  1983 in  which one\t Shri Subhash  Chand
\nPahwa who  was\ttravelling  in\tthe  bus  belonging  to\t the
\nappellant Rajasthan  State Road\t Transport Corporation\tfrom
\nJaipur to  Delhi died  due to  accident by  colliding with a
\ntruck. A  claim petition  was filed  on August\t23, 1983  by
\nrespondent No.\t1, 2 and 3, namely, the widow, minor son and
\ndaughter  of   the  deceased   against\tthe   appellant\t and
\nrespondent No.4,  Shri Deepak  Thakur who  was the driver of
\nTruck No.  HRU 2995,  respondent  No.5,\t Shri  Durga  Prasad
\nParnami, the  owner of\tthe said  truck, respondent No.6 M\/s
\nNew Delhi Assurance Company limited and respondent No.7, Ami
\nChand being  the driver of bus No. RNB 7720 of the Rajasthan
\nState Road Transport Corporation.\n<\/p>\n
     The Accidents  Claim Tribunal passed an award in favour
\nof the\tclaimants, namely,  Smt. Poonam\t Pahwa and her minor
\nson and\t daughter and  against the  respondent including the
\nappellant  Rajasthan   State  Road   Transport\t Corporation
\n(hereinafter referred  to as  the Corporation)\tfor a sum of
\nRs.2.5 lacs with 12% interest from the date of filing of the
\nclaim petition till actual realisation.\n<\/p>\n
     The appellant-Corporation\tdeposited a  cheque  of\t Rs.
\n3,36,111.30  on\t  June\t27,  1986  in  the  executing  Court
\ncomprising the\tdecretal award\tof compensation and interest
\ncalculated on the decretal award upto the date of deposit of
\nthe said  decretal amount.  It is  an admitted position that
\ndecree holder  were not\t informed either  by the Court or by
\nthe judgment debtor about the deposit of the said sum of Rs.
\n3,36,111.30 on\tJune 27, 1986 and the decree holders came to
\nknow about  such deposit  only on April 19, 1989. The decree
\nholders, therefore, made a claim for further interest at the
\nsaid rate  of 12%  from the  date of deposit till the decree
\nholder got  the information  about such\t deposit made by the
\njudgment debtors.  Such claim  was opposed by the appellant-
\nCorporation by\tcontending inter  alia\tthat  there  was  no
\nobligation of  the appellant  Corporation to give intimation
\nto  the\t decree\t holders  about\t the  deposit  made  by\t the
\nCorporation and\t the provisions\t of Order  XXI Rule 1 (2) of
\nthe Code  of Civil Procedure is not applicable in respect of
\nthe award  passed by  the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal and
\nin any\tevent if the Court had failed to give the intimation
\nof such\t deposit, the  judgment debtors would not suffer any
\nprejudice on  account of the mistake committed by the court.
\nSuch  contentions,   however,  have  been  rejected  by\t the
\nTribunal  in   the  execution  proceedings.  The  appellant-
\nCorporation thereafter\tmoved a Revision petition before the
\nPunjab and  Haryana High  Court against\t the order passed by
\nexecuting court for depositing further sum on account of the
\ninterest to be paid by the judgment debtors from the date of
\ndeposit of  the said  decretal amount  till  the  date\twhen
\ndecree holders\thad got\t the information of such deposit. By
\nthe  impugned\tjudgment,  the\t Review\t Petition  has\tbeen
\ndismissed by the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
     Mr. S.  K. Jain,  learned\tcounsel\t appearing  for\t the
\nappellant, has\tsubmitted that\torder XXI  Rule 1 (2) of the
\nCode of\t Civil Procedure  is not  applicable in respect with
\nthe claim  made under  Section 110 [C] of the Motor Vehicles
\nAct, 1939.  Mr. Jain  has  referred  to\t the  provisions  of
\nSection 110  [C] of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 which reads
\nas under.\n<\/p>\n
     “1) In  holding any  enquiry  under
\n     Section 110-B  the claims\ttribunal
\n     may subject  to any  rules that may
\n     be made in this behalf, follow such
\n     summary procedure as it thinks fit,\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     2) The  Claims Tribunal  shall have
\n     all the  powers a\tCivil Court  for
\n     the purpose  of taking  evidence on
\n     oath   and\t   of\tenforcing    the
\n     attendance\t of   witnesses\t and  of
\n     compelling\t  the\t discovery   and
\n     production\t  of\tdocuments    and
\n     material objects and for such other
\n     purposes as  may be prescribed, and
\n     the claims Tribunal shall be deemed
\n     to be  a Civil  Court for\tall  the
\n     purposes of Section 195 and Chapter
\n     XXXV  of  Criminal\t procedure  Code
\n     1898 (Act 5 of 1988).”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Rules have been framed under Section 111 A of the Motor
\nVehicles Act.  Rule 20\tof the\tsaid Rules  prescribes\tthat
\nOrder X,  Rules 9  to 13 and 15 to 30 Order IX, Order XXXIII
\nRules 1\t to 3 should be applicable in the proceedings before
\nClaims Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n
     The Punjab\t Government vide  its Notification  No.\t GSR
\n68\/CA4\/39\/SIII-Adm\/(I) 68  dated June  21, 1968 amended Rule
\n20 to the following effect.\n<\/p>\n
\t  “In the  Punjab Motor Accident
\n     Claims Tribunal Rules, 1969 in Rule
\n     20 between\t the  words  and  figure
\n     Order XVII\t and Order  XXXIIO,  the
\n     word and  figure Order XXI shall be
\n     inserted.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Mr. Jain  has contended that the said amendment of Rule
\n20 had\tnot been incorporated in the Rules applicable in the
\nState of Haryana. Hence, in respect of the claim petition on
\naccount of  accident taking  place in  the State of Haryana,
\nthe provision  of Order\t XXI of\t the Code of civil Procedure
\nhas no\tmanner of  application. Mr.  Jain has also submitted
\nthat in\t any event,  the judgment  debtor had  deposited the
\ndecretal amount\t and such  judgment debtor had no obligation
\nto give\t notice to  the decree\tholders\t about\tmaking\tsuch
\ndeposit. He  has submitted  even if  the Court had a duty to
\ninform the  decree  holders  about  such  deposit,  for\t the
\nfailure of  the Court,\tno liability  can be fastened on the
\njudgment debtor.  Mr. Jain  has submitted  that although the
\nTribunal rightly  indicated the principle of law that nobody
\nshould suffer  on account  of the  mistake of the Court, the
\nTribunal erred\tin awarding  interest for  the\tsaid  period
\nagainst the  judgment debtor even though the judgment debtor
\ndid not commit the mistake but deposited the entire decretal
\namount.\n<\/p>\n
     Mr. Jain  has submitted that even though the provisions
\nof order XXI was not applicable in respect of the said claim
\npetition because amendment of Rule 20 in the State of Punjab
\nby making Order 21 Civil Procedure Code expressly applicable
\nin 1968\t had not  been incorporated  in Rules  applicable in
\nHrayana, it  has been  erroneously held\t that provisions  of
\nOrder XXi  Civil Procedure  Code  are  applicable.  He\thas,
\ntherefore, submitted  that  impugned  decision\tin  awarding
\nfurther interest  for the period between the date of deposit
\nand the date on which the decree holders not the information
\nabout the  deposit was\tillegal and  wholly unjustified\t and
\ntherefore, this\t appeal should be allowed setting asided the
\nimpugned judgment.\n<\/p>\n
     Shri D.  P. Mukherjee,  learned counsel  appearing\t for
\nrespondent No.\t6 namely,  M\/s New  Delhi Assurance  Company
\nLimited and  Ms. Lalita\t Kaushik, learned  counsel appearing
\nfor the\t respondent Nos.  4 and\t 5, namely,  the driver\t and
\nowner of  the said  truck,  however,  did  not\tadvance\t any
\nsubmission  presumably\tbecause\t such  respondents  are\t not
\ndirectly concerned with the impugned decision.\n<\/p>\n
     Dr.  Rajeev  Dhavan,  learned  Senior  counsel  at\t the
\nrequest of this Court, has appeared as amicus curiae in this
\nappeal. Dr.  Dhavan has\t submitted that\t by GSR 20\/CA-4\/39-S
\n111A\/72 dated  January 28,  1972  Haryana  has\tadopted\t the
\nPunjab Motor  Vehicles Rules  by indicating:  In Haryana the
\nPunjab Motor  Vehicles Claims  Tribunal Rules,\t1964 adopted
\nafter substituting  the word  Haryana for  Punjab in  Rule 1
\nClause (b)  and in  Rule 2  Clause  (b).”  Order  XXI  Civil
\nProcedure Code\twas inserted  in Rule  20 in  the  State  of
\nPunjab by  amendment made  on June 21, 1968 and published in
\nGazette on  July 12,  1968. As\tthe Haryana  has adopted the
\nPunjab Rules in 1972 by implication it will mean that Punjab
\nRules as  stood amended\t on the\t date of  adoption of Punjab
\nRules in  Haryana in  1972,   was applicable in the State of
\nHaryana. Dr.  Dhavan has  submitted  that  in  the  impugned
\ndecision, no  reference to  1972 notification of the Haryana
\nGovernment has\tbeen made  and\tonly  reference\t is  to\t the
\njudgments of  Punjab and Haryana High Court of 1968 and 1970
\n(1968 ACT 360(DB) and (AIR 1970 Punjab 506).\n<\/p>\n
     Dr. Dhavan\t has submitted\tthat if\t Order XXI  of Civil
\nProcedure code\tis expressly applicable, law is well settled
\nthat the  judgment debtor  has obligation to notify the date
\nof deposit of decretal amount to the decree holder. But even
\nif  Order   XXI\t Civil\t Procedure  Code  is  not  expressly
\napplicable, the Tribunal having been exclusively vested with
\nthe power  of adjudication  of the  claims  arising  out  of
\naccident of  motor vehicles,  it has  to decide\t such claims
\nfairly and  reasonably by applying the underlying principles
\nof the Civil Procedure Code.\n<\/p>\n
     Dr. Dhavan\t has submitted that the question, therefore,
\nrequires to be considered in this case is:-\n<\/p>\n
     1)\t  Is the Civil Procedure Code or
\n     the   principles\tunderlying   the
\n     provisions\t of   the  Code\t  to  be
\n     followed  in  the\tabsence\t of  any
\n     specific\tincorporation\tof   the
\n     provisions of  the\t Code  of  Civil
\n     Procedure\tparticularly   where   a
\n     selective\tincorporation  has  been
\n     made and  some  provisions\t of  the
\n     Code have been incorporated but the
\n     relevant provisions  of  Order  XXI
\n     have    not    been    incorporated
\n     specifically?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     2) Should\tthe rule  of  notice  in
\n     Order XXI\tRule 1\t(2)  be\t applied
\n     where no  specific incorporation of
\n     the said  rule has\t been  made  and
\n     what  rules  to  be  applied  where
\n     there is lacuna in the procedure?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Dr.  Dhavan  has  submitted  that\tas  an\tadjudicating
\nauthority  of\tthe  claim  arising  out  of  motor  vehicle
\naccident, the  Tribunal has  a duty  to act  judicially\t and
\nfairly by  following the  principles underlying\t the Code of
\nCivil Procedure\t as a  bench mark  for fairness\t unless\t any
\nparticular rule\t of the\t Code of  Civil Procedure  has\tbeen
\nspecially excluded.  Dr. Dhavan\t has submitted\tthat in\t the
\ninstant case,  there is no dispute that the procedure of the
\njudgment debtor’s giving notice to the decree holder was not
\nfollowed. It  is also  not disputed that the executing court
\ndid not\t inform the  decree holder.  The Claims Tribunal has
\nbeen declared  to be  civil court for the purposes of taking
\nevidence on oath, forcing attendance of witnesses, discovery
\nand production\tof documents  and such\tmatters\t as  may  be
\nprescribed and\talso for  the purposes\tof Section  195\t and
\nChapter\t XXXV  of  the\tCriminal  Procedure  Code,  1988  as
\ncontained in Section 110 [c] of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939
\nand corresponding Section 169 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act,
\n1988. Under  the rule  making power  under  the\t said  Motor
\nVehicles Act,  the State  Government can inter alia lay down
\nthe procedure  to be followed by the tribunal and the powers
\nvested in a civil court which may be exercised by the Claims
\nTribunal. Rule\t20 of the Motor Vehicles Act states that the
\nCode of\t Civil Procedure  will apply  in certain  cases. The
\nfollowing provisions  of the  First Schedule  to the Code of
\nCivil Procedure\t 1908 shall  in so  far as may be applied to
\nproceedings before  the Claims\tTribunal, namely,  Order  V,
\nRules 9 to 13 and 15 to 30, Order IX, Order XIII, Rules 3 to
\n10, Order  XVI Rules  2 to 21, Order XVII, and Order XXXIII,
\nRules 1\t to 3.\tAmendment  to  Rule  20\t has  been  made  in
\ndifferent states.  In the  State of  Punjab, Order  XXI\t was
\ninserted in  Rule 20  June 21,\t1968 and  published  in\t the
\nGazette on July 12, 1968. As already indicated, the State of
\nHaryana adopted the Punjab Rules in 1972 after the inclusion
\nof Order  XXI in  the Punjab  Rules in\t1968, by  GSR 20\/CA-
\n4\/39\/S111A\/72 dated January 28, 1972.\n<\/p>\n
     Dr.  Dhavan  has  submitted  that\tthe  Motor  Vehicles
\nlegislation creates  a Claims  Tribunal which  is a body for
\nthe purpose  of adjudicating  claims and  it  is  headed  by
\nqualified legal\t personnel and it has a duty to give parties
\na chance  to be\t heard and  make an  award  determining\t the
\namount of  compensation. For the said contention, Dr. Dhavan
\nhas drawn  the attention  of the Court to Section 110 of the
\nMotor Vehicles\tAct, 1939  and corresponding  Section 165 of
\nthe Motor  Vehicles Act\t of 1988.  Dr. Dhavan  has submitted
\nthat the  Motor Accidents  Claim Tribunals  are in  lieu  of
\nCivil Courts  by excluding the jurisdiction of civil courts.
\nFor such  contention, reference has been made to Section 110
\nF of  the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and corresponding Section
\n175  of\t the  Motor  Vehicles  Act,  1988.  Dr.\t dhavan\t has
\nsubmitted that\tit will, therefore, appear that the Tribunal
\nhas a  duty to\tact judicially\tin a  fair manner consistent
\nwith the statutory scheme that ousts the jurisdiction of the
\ncivil Courts. Dr. dhavan has submitted that procedurally the
\nTribunal is  supposed to  act by way of summary procedure as
\nit thinks fit (Section 110 C of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and
\nSection 169  of Motor  Vehicles Act,  1988). Dr.  Dhavan has
\nalso  contended\t  that\tthe   rule  making   power  makes  a
\ndistinction between  the procedure  to be  followed and\t the
\npowers vested  in a  civil court which may be exercised by a
\nClaims Tribunal\t and any other matter that my be prescribed.
\n(Section 111A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and Section 176 of
\nMotor Vehicles\tAct, 1988).  Dr. Dhavan\t has submitted\tthat
\neven if\t certain empowerments in the code of Civil Procedure
\nare not\t made, the  procedure may  be prescribed or not, the
\nprocedure to  be followed  must\t be  fair.  Dr.\t Dhavan\t has
\nsubmitted  that\t the  criteria\tfor  determining  the  right
\nprocedure  are\t the  Civil   Procedure\t Code  and  Criminal
\nProcedure Code.\t In practice,  the principles underlying the
\nCivil Procedure code. In practice, the principles underlying
\nthe Civil  Procedure code  and the  general  law  have\tbeen
\nfollowed as  being consistent  with public  policy  and\t due
\nprocess.\n<\/p>\n
     Referring to  Wade’s Administrative  Law  (7th  Edition
\npage 931),  Dr. Dhavan\thas contended  that more  generally,
\nfollowing the  tribunalization of  justice, there  is a need
\nthat the tribunals that are set up should be commensurate to
\nthe task.\n<\/p>\n
     Dr. Dhavan\t has submitted\tthat the  need\tfor  a\tfair
\nprocedure stems from the following sources:\n<\/p>\n
     i)\t  Justice,   equity   and   good
\n     conscience- it  is a part of Indian
\n     Law and  must  be\tdeemed\tto  have
\n     continued by  virtue of Article 372
\n     of the Constitution.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     ii) Article,  21 as  interpreted by
\n     this Court\t after\tManeka\tGandhi’s
\n     case (1978\t () SCR\t 621) mandates a
\n     fair procedure.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     iii)  The\t principles  of\t natural
\n     justice are  founded on fairness, a
\n     right to  be heard\t and dealt  with
\n     fairly.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     It has  also been\tsubmitted by  Dr. Dhavan  that as  a
\nmatter of  rule of  law, where the right to adjudicate one’s
\ndisputes is  taken away from a court of law, the alternative
\ndispute\t settlement   mechanism\t must\tbe  fair.  For\tthis
\ncontention, Dr.\t Dhavan has drawn the attention of the Court
\nto the\tdecisions in  Dr. M. Ismail Faruqui & Ors. Vs. Union
\nof India  & Ors.  (1994 (6)  SCC 630 at pp. 412, 422), Magan
\nLal Chagganlal (P) Ltd. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater
\nBombay and  Ors. (1975\t(1) SCR\t at pp.\t 23, 24,  55), in Re
\nSupreme Court  The Special  Courts Bill,  1978 (1979 (2) SCR
\n476, 532,  571, 573). Dr. Dhavan has also submitted that the
\nunderlying  principles\t of  general   law  have  been\tmade
\napplicable on the flooring that they are consistent with the
\npublic policy. In support of this contention, Dr. Dhavan has
\nreferred to  the decision  of this  Court in P. Sambamurty &
\nOrs. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr. (1987 (1) SCC 362)
\nwhere  the   application  under\t Order\tXXIII  in  the\twrit
\nproceedings has\t been upheld.  Dr. Dhavan has submitted that
\nthe practice  of this  Court and the High Courts has been to
\nincorporate general  principles underlying the provisions of
\nCivil Procedure code even though such provisions of the code
\nhave  not   been  specifically\tincorporated  in  the  Motor
\nVehicles Act  and the  Rules. In  this connection, Dr Dhavan
\nhas referred  to  the  decision\t in  State  of\tHaryana\t Vs.
\nDarshana Devi  (1979 (2) SCC 236) where Order XXXIII dealing
\nwith the  provisions for  suing as  forma pauperis  has been
\nmade applicable\t in the proceedings before the Tribunal. Dr.
\nDhavan has  also referred  to the  decision in Bhagwati Devi
\nVs. L  G. Goel\t(1983 ACJ  123 SC)  where it  has been\theld
\nfollowing  the\tprinciple  in  Darshana\t Devi,\tthat  claims
\ntribunals are courts within the meaning of Section 25 of the
\nCode of\t Civil Procedure.  Dr. Dhavan has also referred to a
\nnumber\tof  decisions  of  various  High  Courts  where\t the
\napplication of the principles underlying the Civil Procedure
\ncode  have  been  invoked  in  the  endeavour  to  make\t the
\nprocedure of the Tribunal workable and fair.\n<\/p>\n
     In K.  Narayan Reddiar  vs. P. Venugopala Reddiar<\/a> (1976
\nACJ 474\t at 483\t (AP) – general provisions of the C. P. Code
\nhave been  made applicable  to\tthe  Motor  Accidents  Claim
\nTribunal on  the footing that the Tribunal has the trappings
\nof the\tCourt. Application of underlying principles of C. P.
\nCode has also been made in the decisions in Amarjit Kaur Vs.
\nVanguard Insurance  Co. Ltd.  (1969 ACJ\t 286), Jai Singh Vs.
\nV.N.A. Subramaniam  (1983 ACJ 1), M\/s South Indian Insurance
\nCo. Vs.\t Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, J & K & Other (AIR
\n1973 JK\t 38), New  India Assurance  Co. Vs.  Punjab Roadways
\n(AIR 1964  Pubjab 235),\t Bihar\tCooperative  Motor  Vehicles
\nInsurance Society  Vs. Rameshwar  Raut (AIR 1970 Patna 172),
\nand Madras  Motor and  General Insurance  Co. Vs.  K. Gopala
\nMudaliar (1972\tACJ 135\t Madras). Similarly, the application
\nof provisions  in respect  of filing  additional  statements
\nunder Order  VIII Rule\t9 has  been  made  in  South  Indian
\nInsurance Co.  Ltd. Vs.\t Lakshmi and  Ors. (1967  ACJ  153).
\nApplication of\tprovisions on power to issue Commissions has
\nbeen made  in M.  K. Krishnan  Nair Vs.\t Pankaj Jethalal Sha
\n(AIR 1979 Madras 259).\n<\/p>\n
     Dr. Dhavan has submitted that Order XXI Rule 1 provides
\nfor that:\n<\/p>\n
     i) the  obligation to  pay interest
\n     continues unit  notice is\tgiven to
\n     the judgment debtor\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     ii) the payment into court does not
\n     constitute\t a   payment   for   the
\n     decretal amount with interest\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     iii) the  judgment debtor may treat
\n     the   said\t  payment   as\t towards
\n     interest, with  the result that the
\n     principal amount is still due\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     iv)  any payment into court without
\n     notice does  not amount  to payment
\n     in full  satisfaction of the decree
\n     and interest  will\t continue  until
\n     notice is\tgiven (Order  XXI Rule 1
\n     (4) Civil Procedure code)
\n     Dr. Dhavan\t has also  submitted that the failure of not
\ngiving notice  is not  a technical matter but constitutes an
\nimportant principle of fairness.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Dr. Dhavan\t has lastly  submitted that  admittedly\t the
\njudgment debtor\t did not  vie notice for the decretal amount
\nbeing deposited in Court even though the judgment debtor had
\nan obligation under Order XXI Rule 1 code of Civil Procedure
\nto give\t such specific\tnotice of the date of deposit of the
\ndecretal amount\t to the\t decree holder. The judgment debtor,
\ntherefore cannot  avoid the  liability by contending that it
\nwas the\t duty of  the Court to intimate and if the Court has
\ncommitted the  mistake in  not informing  the decree holder,
\nthe judgment  debtor cannot  suffer on account of the laches
\nof the\tCourt. Dr.  Dhavan has\tsubmitted that since Rule 20
\nwas amended  by the  State of Punjab in 1968 and Haryana has
\nadopted the  said rule\tin 1972,  it should be held that the
\nHaryana has adopted Rule 20 with all amendments incorporated
\nin Punjab  Rules on  the date  adoption of  Punjab  Rule  by
\nHaryana. Hence,\t the liability under Order XX Rule 1 Code of
\nCivil Procedure\t because of the express application of Order
\nXXI in\tthe Punjab  Rules since\t adopted by State of Haryana
\ncannot be evaded by the Judgment debtor.\n<\/p>\n
     Dr. Dhavan\t has further  submitted that  even if  it is
\nassumed that  the State\t of Haryana  has adopted  the Punjab
\nRules of  1964 without\tamendment effected  subsequently  in
\n1968 by\t which order  XXI Civil Procedure Code has been made
\nexpressly applicable,  the Tribunal  had  the  authority  to
\napply the  underlying principle of Order XXI Rule 1 of Civil
\nProcedure code\tin awarding  interest against  the  judgment
\ndebtor because\tsuch principle\tunder Order  XXI Rule  1  is
\nconsistent with justice and fairplay and the Tribunal having
\nbeen vested  with exclusive  jurisdiction to  adjudicate the
\nclaims arising out of motor accidents, has to act fairly and
\nreasonably in  resolving the  claim. Therefore, the impugned
\njudgment is  quite legal  and valid and interference against
\nthe said decision is not called for.\n<\/p>\n
     After giving our careful consideration to the facts and
\ncircumstances of  the case  and the  submission made  by the
\nlearned counsel\t for the  appellant and\t by Dr.\t Dhavan, the
\nlearned Senior\tcounsel appearing  as amicus  curiae in this
\nappeal, it  appears to\tus that\t the State  of\tHaryana\t has
\nadopted the  Punjab Motor  Accidents Claims  Tribunal  Rules
\n1964 by substituting the word ‘Haryana’ for Punjab in Rule 1
\nClause (b)  and in  Rule 2  Clause (b). Such adoption in the
\nPunjab Motor  Accidents Claims\tTribunal, 1964\twas made  on
\nJanuary 20,  1972. In  the  Punjab  Motor  Accidents  Claims
\nTribunal Rules 1964, amendment was effected on June 21, 1968
\nby inserting  Order XXI\t of the\t Code of  Civil Procedure in
\nRule 20\t framed under Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. In our view,
\nDr. Dhavan  is justified in his submission that when Haryana
\nhas adopted  the Punjab\t Motor Accidents  Rules in  1972, it
\nmust be\t held that  it has  adopted the\t Punjab Rules  as it
\nstood on  the date  of adoption,  namely, January  20, 1972.
\nOrder XXI  of the Code of Civil procedure has been expressly
\nmade applicable\t in Punjab  Motor Accidents  Claims Tribunal
\nRules by  amending the\tPunjab Rules  in June 1968 which was
\npublished  in  Gazette\ton  July  12,  1968.  Therefore,  by
\nadopting the  Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Rules, 1964 in
\n1972, it  should be held that Haryana has adopted the Punjab
\nMotor Accidents Claims Tribunal Rules, 1964 as stood amended
\non the\tdate of\t adoption. In this connection, reference may
\nbe made\t to the\t decision of  this  court  in  Mahindra\t and
\nMahindra Vs.  Union of\tIndia (1979  (2) SCC 529) and Bolani
\nOres Ltd.  Vs. State  of  Orissa  (1974\t (2)  SCC  777).  In
\nMahindra and Mahindra’s case, it has been held that if there
\nis mere\t reference to  a provision  of\tstatute\t in  another
\nwithout incorporation  then  unless  a\tdifferent  intention
\nclearly appears,  Section 8 (1) of General Clauses Act would
\napply and the reference would be construed as a reference to
\nthe provision  as may  be in  force from time to time in the
\nformer statute.\t But  if  a  provisions\t of  one  statue  is
\nincorporated in\t another, any  subsequent amendment  in\t the
\nformer statute or even its total repeal would not affect the
\nprovision as incorporated in the latter statute.\n<\/p>\n
     In the  decision in Bolani Ores case, the question came
\nup for\tconsideration  of  this\t court\tas  to\twhether\t the
\ndefinition of  ‘motor vehicles’\t in Section  2 (18)  of\t the
\nBihar and  Orissa  Motor  Vehicles  Taxation  Act,  1930  as
\nincorporated in\t Orissa by  the Orissa Amendment Act of 1940
\nwill include the definition of ‘motor vehicles’ in the Motor
\nVehicles Act  as amended  in 1986.  It has been held by this
\nCourt  that   incorporation  of\t the  definition  of  ‘motor
\nvehicles’ in  the Orissa  Taxation Act would not be affected
\nby subsequent amendment of the definition of ‘motor vehicle’
\nin the Motor Vehicles Act. In appreciating the definition of
\n‘motor vehicle’\t as incorporated by the Taxation Act, regard
\nmust be\t had to the intention of the legislature in adopting
\nsuch a\tmethod, its  purpose  and  intendment  as  also\t the
\ndefinition of  the Motor  Vehicles Act.\t It  has  also\tbeen
\nindicated that\tnature of  tax under  the Taxation  Act must
\nremain\tcompensatory  and  regulatory  in  character.  If  a
\nvehicle does  not use  the public  road, it cannot be taxed.
\nTherefore,  legislature\t only  intended\t to  incorporate  by
\nreference to the definition of motor vehicles as in 1940.\n<\/p>\n
     There is nothing to indicate that in Haryana the Punjab
\nMotor Accidents\t Claims Tribunal  Rules,  1964\twithout\t the
\namendment  effected  in\t the  said  Rules  after  1964\twere
\nadopted. Hence,\t when Punjab  Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
\nRules were  adopted by\tonly referring\tthe Rules and not by
\nexpressly indicating  that the\tsaid Punjab Rules of 1964 as
\nit stood in 1964 were only adopted, it must be held that the
\nPunjab Rules  as stood\tamended on  the date  of adoption by
\nHaryana are  applicable in  the State  of Haryana. It cannot
\nalso be\t held that  there was  a legislative  intendment  to
\nrestrict the Punjab Rules in its application in Haryana only
\nto the\textent of  Punjab Rules\t of 1964.  The amendment  in
\nPunjab Rules  in 1968  was made\t in order to bring in effect
\nthe procedural\tlaw being  followed by\tthe civil courts for
\nensuring fair trial and justice by inserting Order XXI Civil
\nProcedure Code. In this connection, reference may be made to
\na decision  of a  seven Judges’ Bench of this Court in State
\nof Maharashtra\tVs. Madhavrao  Damodar Patil  and Anr.\tetc.
\n(AIR 1968  SC 1395). The question arose for consideration by
\nthis Court  in the said case was whether amendments effected
\nin the\tMaharashtra  State  Agricultural  Land\t(Ceiling  on
\nHoldings) Act,\t1961 have  the protection for being included
\nin Ninth  Schedule of the Constitution when for inclusion in
\nNinth Schedule,\t only the  said principal  Act of  1961\t was
\nmentioned without mentioning the amendment acts. It has been
\nheld by\t this Court  in the  said decision that although for
\nsome purposes  an amending Act retains its individuality but
\nhis, however,  does not\t lead to conclusion that when an Act
\nis referred to, it is not intended to include the amendments
\nmade in\t it. Therefore,\t the amendments effected in the said
\nMaharashtra State  Agricultural Lands  (Ceiling on Holdings)
\nAct, 1961 will also get the protection for being included in
\nthe Ninth Schedule of the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
     Order XXI\tRule 1\tCivil Procedure\t code as  amended in
\n1976 expressly\tprovides that the judgment debtor shall give
\nnotice of  the deposit\tof the decretal amount to the decree
\nholder dither  through the  Court or  directly to the decree
\nholder. The  obligation of  giving the\tnotice to the decree
\nholder is  not absolved\t by  simply  depositing\t the  amount
\nwithout taking steps to ensure service of the notice of such
\ndeposit to  the decree\tholder through\tCourt or  otherwise.
\nTherefore, the\tappellant cannot escape its liability to pay
\ninterest to  the decree\t holder for  the period\t between the
\ndate of\t deposit of  the decretal  amount and  the  date  of
\nnotice of such deposit of the decree holder.\n<\/p>\n
     Even if it is assumed that by adopting the Punjab Motor
\nAccidents  Claims   Tribunal  rules   1964  the\t  subsequent
\namendments effected  in the  said Rules\t were not adopted or
\nincorporated by\t the State  of Haryana\tand therefore, Order
\nXXI of\tthe Code  of Civil  Procedure cannot  be held  to be
\nexpressly applicable  in the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal
\nRules of Haryana, the appellant in our view, can be fastened
\nwith the  liability to pay interest for the aforesaid period
\non account  of not  giving notice  of  the  deposit  of\t the
\ndecretal  amount  to  the  decree  holder  by  applying\t the
\nunderlying principles of Order XXI Rule 1 of Civil Procedure
\ncode.  The   Motor  Accidents\tClaims\tTribunal   has\tbeen
\nconstituted under  the Motor  Vehicles Act to adjudicate the
\ndisputer  arising   out\t of   claims  on  account  of  motor
\naccidents. The\tMotor Accidents\t Claims\t Tribunal  has\tbeen
\nconstituted  by\t  giving  the\texclusive  jurisdiction\t  to
\ndetermine such\tdisputes by  excluding the  jurisdiction  of
\ncivil courts.  The Motor  Accidents Claims  Tribunal being a
\nstatutory Judicial  Tribunal  specifically  constituted\t for
\nadjudicating the  claims arising out of Motor accidents have
\ntrappings of the Court. In Bhagwati Devi’s case (supra) this
\nCourt has  applied the\tprovisions of  Section 25  of  Civil
\nProcedure code\tfor transferring  the case from one Court to
\nanother\t by  indicating\t that  the  Motor  Accidents  Claims
\nTribunals are courts within the meaning of Section 25 of the
\nCivil Procedure\t code. In Darshana Devi’s case (supra), this
\ncourt also  applied Order  XXIII dealing with the provisions
\nfro suing  by an  indigent person  in  forma  pauperis\teven
\nthough in  Rule 20,  neither order  XXIII nor  Section 25 of
\nCivil Procedure\t code have  been made  expressly applicable.
\nDr. Dhavan  has\t taken\tpains  in  referring  to  number  of
\ndecisions  of  various\tHigh  Courts  where  the  underlying
\nprinciples of Civil Procedure Code have been made applicable
\nin the\tproceedings before  the statutory judicial tribunals
\non the\tfooting that such provisions of Civil procedure code
\nare based on equitable principles for ensuring fair trial.\n<\/p>\n
     In Mathunni Mathai Vs. Hindustan Organic Chemicals Ltd.
\nand Ors.  (1995 (4) SCC 26), it has been held that Order XXI
\nRule 1\tas amended  in 1976  is applicable  in executing the
\naward made  under the  Land Acquisition Act after indicating
\nthe principle  that if\tthe decretal  amount is deposited by
\nthe judgment  debtor pursuant  to the order of the Court and
\nthe judgment  debtor has not given notice of such deposit to
\nthe decree  holder and\talso does  not specify the manner in
\nwhich the  amount should  be appropriated, the decree holder
\nwill be\t entitled to appropriate the amount deposited by the
\njudgment debtor\t towards interest and other expenses and the
\ndecree holder  is not  bound to\t adjust the same towards the
\nprincipal.\n<\/p>\n
     In Prem Nath Kapur and another Vs. National Fertilizers
\nCorporation of\tIndia and  others (1996\t (2)  SCC  71),\t the
\ndecision  in  Mathunni\tMathai’s  case\thas  been  expressly
\noverruled by  a three  Judges’ Bench  of this  Court on\t the
\nfinding that  Order XXI\t Rule 1\t being inconsistent with the
\nprovisions contained  in Section  34  and  28  of  the\tLand
\nAcquisition Act,  Such provision  of  Civil  Procedure\tcode
\ncannot be  extended to the execution of award made under the
\nLand Acquisition  Act. Dr. Dhavan has rightly contended that
\nin Prem\t Nath’s case  non applicability\t of Order XXI Rule 1
\nCivil Procedure\t code on  the score  of\t inconsistency\twith
\nprovisions of  Land Acquisition Act relating to awards under
\nthe said  Act has  been indicated  and for  the said reason,
\napplicability of  Order XXI,  Rule 1 Civil Procedure Code as
\nheld  in   Mathunni’s\tcase   has   been   overruled.\t But
\napplicability of  Order XXI  Rule 1  Civil Procedure code in
\nother cases has not been doubted and the principle indicated
\nin Mathunni’s  case has\t also not  been\t discarded.  On\t the
\ncontrary, it  has been\theld in\t Prem Nath’s  case that\t the
\ndecision of  this Court in Meghraj Vs. Bayabai (1969 (2) SCC\n<\/p>\n
274) since  relied in  Mathunni’s case\tis applicable  to  a
\ndebtor and  creditor in\t an ordinary  civil suit governed by
\nCivil Procedure Code.\n<\/p>\n
     It appears\t to us that the provisions of Order XXI Rule
\n1 are  not in  any way\tinconsistent with the provisions for
\nawarding  just\tand  fair  compensation\t in  Motor  Accident
\nClaims.\t The   real  purpose   of  awarding  just  and\tfair
\ncompensation to\t the victim  of the  accident or  the  legal
\nheirs of  such victim  will be\tfulfilled  by  applying\t the
\nprinciple of  Order XXI\t Rule 1 Civil Procedure code so that
\nthe awardee  is not deprived of the opportunity of gainfully
\nutilising the  amount under  the award\tfor want  of  notice
\nabout the  deposit made\t by judgment debtor resulting in the
\nsum remaining  unutilised. In  our view, therefore, there is
\nno difficulty to apply the underlying principles under Order
\nXXI, Rule  1 Civil  Procedure Code in executing the award of
\ncompensation passed  by the  Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal
\nand the\t Tribunal must be held to be competent to invoke the
\nbeneficial provisions  of Order\t XXI Rule  1 Civil Procedure
\nCode.\n<\/p>\n
     We may indicate here that before the amendment of Order
\nXXI Rule 1 Civil Procedure code by the Amending Act, 1976 on
\nthe question  of liability  of the  judgment debtor  to give
\nnotice when  the decretal  amount is deposited in Court, The
\nHigh Courts  took different views. In Laxminarayan Ganeshdas
\nVs. Ghasiraam  Dalchan Palaliwal  (AIR 1939  Nagpur 191), it
\nhas been  held that  where a  decree orders the payment of a
\nsum of\tmoney awarding\tinterest until payment and the money
\nis paid\t by payment  into Court under the provision of Order
\nXXI Rule  1, the interest does not run until notice has been
\ngiven to  the decree  holder under  Order XXI Rule 1 (2) but
\nceases to  run from  the date  of such payment. Such view of
\nthe Nagpur High Court was dissented from in a later decision
\nby the\tKerala High  Court in  State of\t Kerala Vs. Mahadeva
\nIyer (AIR  1969 Kerala 8). The kerala High Court in the said
\ndecision has  held that where the interest is awarded by the
\ndecree on  the decretal\t amount until  payment, it  does not
\ncease to  run merely  by reason of the making of the deposit
\nof the\tdecretal amount\t into court unless it is followed up
\nby the\tservice of  notice as  required by Clause (2). It is
\nonly when the fact of deposit is brought to the knowledge of
\nthe decree holder by service of such notice that the deposit
\nwill amount  to payment within the meaning of Order XXI Rule\n<\/p>\n
1. In taking the said view, the Kerala High Court has relied
\non the decision of other High Courts (AIR 1932 Calcutta 111,
\nAIR 1951  Bombay 394,  AIR 1952\t Travancore Cochin  236, AIR
\n1955 Madh Bha 126,  AIR 1956 Travancore Cochin 46).\n<\/p>\n
     After the\tamendment of Order XXI Rule 1 in 1976, there
\nis no  scope for  any controversy as to the liability of the
\njudgment debtor\t when the  decretal amount  is deposited  in
\nCourt but  the notice  of such\tdeposit is  not given to the
\ndecree holder. It is imperative that the judgment debtor has
\nto give\t notice to  the decree\tholder about deposit for the
\ndecretal amount.  Since motor  accident in the instant case,
\nhad taken  place on May 7, 1983, Order XXI Rule 1 as amended
\nin 1976\t is clearly  applicable. Even  otherwise  also,\t the
\nprovision of  Order XXI\t Rule  1  being\t a  procedural\tlaw,
\namended provisions  of Order  XXI Rule 1 are applicable even
\nif the\taccident had  taken place prior to 1976 because such
\namendment  of\tprocedural  law\t  is  retrospective  in\t its
\noperation.\n<\/p>\n
     In the  aforesaid\tcircumstances,\tno  interference  is
\ncalled for  against the\t impugned decision and the appeal is
\ndismissed, without  however any\t order as to cost. Before we
\npart, we intend to place on record our deep appreciation for
\nthe valuable assistance rendered by Dr. Dhavan who has taken
\npains in  assisting the\t Court by  appearing  as  an  amicus
\ncuriae.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Rajasthan State Road Transport … vs Smt. Poonam Pahwa And Ors on 9 July, 1997 Author: G Ray Bench: G. N. Ray, G. T. Nanavati PETITIONER: RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, JAIPUR Vs. RESPONDENT: SMT. POONAM PAHWA AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09\/07\/1997 BENCH: G. N. RAY, G. T. NANAVATI ACT: […]<\/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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-131941","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nRajasthan State Road Transport ... vs Smt. Poonam Pahwa And Ors on 9 July, 1997 - 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\/rajasthan-state-road-transport-vs-smt-poonam-pahwa-and-ors-on-9-july-1997\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Rajasthan State Road Transport ... vs Smt. Poonam Pahwa And Ors on 9 July, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajasthan-state-road-transport-vs-smt-poonam-pahwa-and-ors-on-9-july-1997\" \/>\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=\"1997-07-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-03-31T03:44:48+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=\"28 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajasthan-state-road-transport-vs-smt-poonam-pahwa-and-ors-on-9-july-1997#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajasthan-state-road-transport-vs-smt-poonam-pahwa-and-ors-on-9-july-1997\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Rajasthan State Road Transport … vs Smt. Poonam Pahwa And Ors on 9 July, 1997\",\"datePublished\":\"1997-07-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-31T03:44:48+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajasthan-state-road-transport-vs-smt-poonam-pahwa-and-ors-on-9-july-1997\"},\"wordCount\":5634,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajasthan-state-road-transport-vs-smt-poonam-pahwa-and-ors-on-9-july-1997#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajasthan-state-road-transport-vs-smt-poonam-pahwa-and-ors-on-9-july-1997\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajasthan-state-road-transport-vs-smt-poonam-pahwa-and-ors-on-9-july-1997\",\"name\":\"Rajasthan State Road Transport ... vs Smt. Poonam Pahwa And Ors on 9 July, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1997-07-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-31T03:44:48+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajasthan-state-road-transport-vs-smt-poonam-pahwa-and-ors-on-9-july-1997#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajasthan-state-road-transport-vs-smt-poonam-pahwa-and-ors-on-9-july-1997\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajasthan-state-road-transport-vs-smt-poonam-pahwa-and-ors-on-9-july-1997#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Rajasthan State Road Transport … vs Smt. Poonam Pahwa And Ors on 9 July, 1997\"}]},{\"@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":"Rajasthan State Road Transport ... vs Smt. Poonam Pahwa And Ors on 9 July, 1997 - 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\/rajasthan-state-road-transport-vs-smt-poonam-pahwa-and-ors-on-9-july-1997","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Rajasthan State Road Transport ... vs Smt. Poonam Pahwa And Ors on 9 July, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajasthan-state-road-transport-vs-smt-poonam-pahwa-and-ors-on-9-july-1997","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1997-07-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-03-31T03:44:48+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":"28 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajasthan-state-road-transport-vs-smt-poonam-pahwa-and-ors-on-9-july-1997#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajasthan-state-road-transport-vs-smt-poonam-pahwa-and-ors-on-9-july-1997"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Rajasthan State Road Transport … vs Smt. Poonam Pahwa And Ors on 9 July, 1997","datePublished":"1997-07-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-31T03:44:48+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajasthan-state-road-transport-vs-smt-poonam-pahwa-and-ors-on-9-july-1997"},"wordCount":5634,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajasthan-state-road-transport-vs-smt-poonam-pahwa-and-ors-on-9-july-1997#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajasthan-state-road-transport-vs-smt-poonam-pahwa-and-ors-on-9-july-1997","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajasthan-state-road-transport-vs-smt-poonam-pahwa-and-ors-on-9-july-1997","name":"Rajasthan State Road Transport ... vs Smt. Poonam Pahwa And Ors on 9 July, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1997-07-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-31T03:44:48+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajasthan-state-road-transport-vs-smt-poonam-pahwa-and-ors-on-9-july-1997#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajasthan-state-road-transport-vs-smt-poonam-pahwa-and-ors-on-9-july-1997"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajasthan-state-road-transport-vs-smt-poonam-pahwa-and-ors-on-9-july-1997#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Rajasthan State Road Transport … vs Smt. Poonam Pahwa And Ors on 9 July, 1997"}]},{"@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\/131941","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=131941"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/131941\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=131941"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=131941"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=131941"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}