{"id":146668,"date":"1996-02-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1996-02-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-sarla-dixit-anr-vs-balwant-yadav-ors-on-29-february-1996"},"modified":"2018-12-18T20:04:15","modified_gmt":"2018-12-18T14:34:15","slug":"smt-sarla-dixit-anr-vs-balwant-yadav-ors-on-29-february-1996","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-sarla-dixit-anr-vs-balwant-yadav-ors-on-29-february-1996","title":{"rendered":"Smt Sarla Dixit & Anr vs Balwant Yadav & Ors on 29 February, 1996"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Smt Sarla Dixit & Anr vs Balwant Yadav & Ors on 29 February, 1996<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1996 AIR 1274, \t\t 1996 SCC (3) 179<\/div>\n
Author: M S.B.<\/div>\n
Bench: Majmudar S.B. (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nSMT SARLA DIXIT & ANR.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nBALWANT YADAV & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t29\/02\/1996\n\nBENCH:\nMAJMUDAR S.B. (J)\nBENCH:\nMAJMUDAR S.B. (J)\nBHARUCHA S.P. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1996 AIR 1274\t\t  1996 SCC  (3) 179\n JT 1996 (3)   252\t  1996 SCALE  (2)802\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
\t\t      J U D G M E N T
\nS.B. Majmudar, J.\n<\/p>\n
     The appellants,  who were\tthe  original  claimants  in
\nClaim Petition\tNo.9 of\t 1976  before  the  Motor  Accidents
\nClaims Tribunal,  Gwalior, have\t felt aggrieved by the order
\npassed by  the High  Court of Madhya Pradesh Jabalpur, Bench
\nGwalior in  Civil Misc.\t Appeal No.174\tof  1977  by  which,
\naccording to  the appellants, the High Court only marginally
\nenhanced the compensation payable by respondents nos.1 and 2
\nto the\tappellants. They  have\tobtained  special  leave  to
\nappeal under  Article 136  of the Constitution of India from
\nthis Court  and that is how this appeal was placed for final
\nhearing before us.\n<\/p>\n
Introductory Facts\n<\/p>\n
——————\n<\/p>\n
     A few  relevant facts  leading to these proceedings may
\nbe noted at the outset. Appellant No. 1 is the widow of late
\nCaptain Rama  Kant Dixit  who died  on 16th  March 1975 in a
\nroad accident.\tAppellant No.2\twas the\t minor\tdaughter  of
\nappellant no.1\twho by\tnow has become major as she was aged
\n14 years  in 1985  when Petition for Special Leave to Appeal
\nwas moved  in this  Court. It  is the case of the appellants
\nthat late  Capt. Rama  Kant Dixit  was hit  by the offending
\ntruck owned  by respondent  No. 1  which was  driven at\t the
\nrelevant time  by respondent  no.2. The\t truck\twas  insured
\nagainst third  party risk  by respondent  no.3. That  on the
\nrelevant date of the accident the deceased was aged 27 years
\nand was\t serving as  Captain in Indian Army. He was going on
\n16th March  1975 at  about 11.00  a.m. from  Chandra  Prasth
\nColony side  towards Mall  Road, Morar,\t within the  city of
\nGwalior. That  at that\ttime respondent no.2 was driving the
\naforesaid truck\t and was  coming from  the side\t of Gola-Ka-
\nMandir and  was proceeding  towards a locality known as J&K.
\nThe said  road was a public road admeasuring 25 ft. in width
\nand was\t running from west to east. The truck was proceeding
\nfrom west  to east going towards eastern side where locality
\nJ&K was\t situated. On  the  said  roads\t intersection  no.7,
\nanother public\troad, was proceeding from north to south and
\nit was\tknown as  Indraprastha Road.  The  deceased  at\t the
\nrelevant time  was driving  a  scooter\tcarrying  a  pillion
\nrider, appellants’  witness no.7 one Ramji Sharma. It is the
\ncase of\t the appellants\t that while  the scooter had entered
\nthe intersection  and was  proceeding southwards on the said
\nroad respondent no.2 driving the truck from the western side
\ncame in\t high speed and dashed against the scooter resulting
\nin  instantaneous   death  of\tappellant  no.\t1’s  husband
\nCapt.Rama Kant\tDixit. On  account of  the said accident the
\nappellants having  lost the  sole  bread  winner  filed\t the
\naforesaid Claim\t Petition before  the Gwalior Tribunal under
\nSection 110A  of the  Motor Vehicles  Act, 1939- In the said
\nClaim Petition\toriginally appellant  no.1’s  mother-in-law,
\nthat is,  mother of deceased Rama Kant Dixit was also joined
\nas one\tof the\tclaimants but  pending the  proceedings, she
\nexpired and the appellants continued the Claim Petition also
\nas her\theirs with  the result\tthat thereafter\t remained as
\nclaimants only the present two appellants. The claimants put
\nforward total\tclaim  of  Rs.6,12,524\/-  on  various  heads
\nagainst\t the   respondents  However,   the  Tribunal   after
\ncomputing the  compensation payable to the appellants sliced
\nit down\t by 75%\t on the\t ground that  deceased Rama Kant was
\nguilty of  contributory negligence  to the extent of 75% and
\nthe truck driver was negligent only to the extent of 25% and
\nawarded in  all Rs.42,569\/-  to the  appellants. Respondents
\nnos.1 and  2 were  made liable to make good the said amount.
\nRespondent no.3, the insurance company was exonerated by the
\nTribunal as  it was  found that\t at the\t relevant  time\t the
\noffending truck\t was being driven by respondent no.2 who was
\nnot  having   any  driving  licence.  The  appellants  being
\naggrieved by  the said\taward of  the Tribunal preferred the
\naforesaid appeal  before the  High Court  of Madhya Pradesh,
\nJabalpur, Bench\t Gwalior. It  may be  noted that  so far  as
\nrespondents nos.1  and 2 were concerned they preferred Cross
\nFirst Appeal  No.178 of\t 1977 challenging  the award  of the
\nTribunal against them and also to the extent respondent no.3
\nwas exonerated\tof its\tliability to meet the awarded claim.
\nAppellants did\tnot press  their challenge to the finding of
\nthe Tribunal  exonerating  respondent  no.3,  the  insurance
\ncompany,  of   its  liability  to  meet\t the  claim  of\t the
\nappellants.  So\t  far  as  respondents\tnos.  1\t and  2\t are
\nconcerned, their  challenge to\tthe award  of  the  Tribunal
\nexonerating respondent\tno.3,  the  insurance  company,\t was
\nrejected by  the High  Court. Consequently, the only contest
\nin appeal  before the High Court centered round the question
\nabout the  computation of  proper compensation to be awarded
\nto the\tappellants which  in   its turn\t also  included\t the
\nquestion whether  any amount  could be\tsliced down from the
\ncomputed  compensation\t on  the   ground  of\tcontributory
\nnegligence of deceased Rama Kant.\n<\/p>\n
     The High  Court, therefore,  addressed itself  on these
\ntwo  main  issues  and\tcame  to  the  conclusion  that\t the
\nappellants  were  entitled  to\tget  total  compensation  of
\nRs.54,000\/- and\t that nothing was required to be sliced down
\nfrom the said amount as deceased Rama Kant was not guilty of
\nany contributory negligence and the entire negligence rested
\non the shoulder of respondents no.2, driver of the truck and
\nconsequently respondent\t no.2 and  the owner  of the  truck,
\nrespondent  no.\t  1  were   liable  to\tmeet  the  claim  of
\ncompensation awarded  to  the  appellants.  The\t High  Court
\nordered that  Rs.54,000\/ shall\tcarry simple  interest @  6%
\nfrom the  date of the Claim Petition, that is 10th July 1975
\ntill 13th October 1975 and then from 19th January 1976 until
\nfull realization.  The claimants’  rest of the claim against
\nrespondents nos.  1 and\t 2 was dismissed. Appellants’ appeal
\nwas also  dismissed with costs against respondent nos.3, the
\ninsurance company.  It was  also ordered that the appellants
\nshall receive  one-half costs  of the  proceeding before the
\nClaims Tribunal\t and  one-half\tcosts  of  the\tappeal\tfrom
\nrespondents nos.  1 and\t 2 while they had to pay the cost of
\ninsurance company, respondent no.3, in proceeding before the
\nClaims Tribunal.  Respondents nos. 1 and 2 had to bear their
\nown costs throughout.\n<\/p>\n
Rival Contentions\n<\/p>\n
——————\n<\/p>\n
     Tn\t the   present\tappeal\t learned  counsel   for\t the
\nappellant-claimants vehemently\tcontended that\tthe award of
\ncompensation as\t granted by the High Court in appeal was too
\nmuch on\t the lower side. That the High Court had not applied
\nthe correct  principles in  computing compensation  in\tsuch
\nfatal accidents’  cases and  that once\tit was held that the
\naccident  was  caused  on  account  of\tsole  negligence  of
\nrespondent no.2,  driver of  the truck, looking to the young
\nage of\tthe deceased  and his  future prospects\t in life the
\nHigh Court  should have\t granted appropriate compensation to
\nthe appellants.\t That award  of Rs.  54,000\/- was to say the
\nleast extremely\t conservative and  was too low. On the other
\nhand, learned  counsel for respondents nos. 1 and 2 tried to
\nsupport the  award of  compensation as\tgranted by  the High
\nCourt and  while supporting the same learned counsel for the
\nrespondents also sought to challenge the finding of the High
\nCourt  that  deceased  Rama  Kant  was\tnot  guilty  of\t any
\ncontributory negligence.  It was  tried to be submitted that
\nthe Tribunal was right in taking the view that deceased Rama
\nKant was  guilty of contributory negligence to the extent of
\n75% and\t consequently in  any case the amount awarded by the
\nHigh Court  was not  required to  be enhanced even though it
\nmay  not   be  reduced\tas  there  is  no  cross  appeal  by
\nrespondents nos.  1 and\t 2. So\tfar as\tthe  exoneration  of
\nrespondent no.3,  the insurance\t company, is  concerned, the
\nsaid finding  reached by  the Tribunal\tas well\t as the High
\nCourt could  not be  assailed by respondents nos. 1 and 2 as
\nthey have  not filed  any cross\t appeal\t before\t this  Court
\nchallenging that  part of the appellate decision rendered by
\nthe High Court against them.\n<\/p>\n
     In\t view\tof  the\t  aforesaid  rival  contentions\t the
\nfollowing points arise for our determination :\n<\/p>\n
1. What\t is the proper amount of compensation payable to the
\nappellants on  account of  the accidental  death of deceased
\nRama Kent Dixit caused by the offending truck.\n<\/p>\n
2. Whether  deceased Rama  Kant had  contributed towards the
\nsaid accident  by his  own negligence to any extent. 3. What
\nfinal order.\n<\/p>\n
     We shall consider these aforesaid points seriatim ;
\nPoint No.1\n<\/p>\n
———-\n<\/p>\n
     On the  question of  computation of proper compensation
\nto be  awarded to  the appellants  certain well\t established
\nfacts on  the record  of this case are required to be noted.
\nThe deceased  was the only bread winner in the family of the
\nappellants. He\twas cut short in the prime period of life at
\nthe age\t of 27\tby the\taccident caused\t by the truck driver
\nrespondent no.2.  He had  put in  seven\t years\tof  military
\nservice by  that time.\tHe was\tearlier a  Lieutenant in the
\nArmy. then  he was  promoted to the rank of  Captain and was
\nfully qualified\t for promotion to the rank of a major at the
\ntime of his death. The certificate issued by Dy. Comdt. & OC
\nTps. Rampal  Singh showed that the deceased had obtained the
\nfollowing models  during active service in various operation
\nareas :\n<\/p>\n
(a) Senya Seva Service Hedal.\n<\/p>\n
(b) Sangram Medal.\n<\/p>\n
(c) Poorvi Star.\n<\/p>\n
(d) 25th Indept.. Anniversary Medal.\n<\/p>\n
His gross  salary at  the time of his death was Rs.1543\/p.m.
\nHe had passed his M.A. examination at the time of his death.
\nHe was\tin the\ttime scale  of Rs.1000-50-1550. He had large
\nnumber of years of military service ahead of him which would
\nhave certainly\ttaken him to higher echelons in the military
\ncareer. The  evidence showed  that he  was a teetotaller. He
\ndid not smoke or drink. This is established by the testimony
\nof appellant  no. 1. The Claims Tribunal on the basis of the
\naforesaid evidence  on record came to the conclusion that on
\naccount of  the untimely  death of  Rama Kant the appellants
\nsuffered   approximately    a\ttotal\tmonetary   loss\t  of
\nRs.1,70.2BS\/-. But  as the  Tribunal found that the deceased
\nwas 75%\t responsible for  the accident\tthe appellants\twere
\nawarded only 25% of Rs.1,70,238\/- which came to Rs.42,569\/-.
\nThe High Court in appeal took the view that out of the gross
\nsalary of Rs.1543\/- p.m. deceased Rama Kant would have spent
\non himself  Rs.900\/and from this an amount of Rs.375\/- would
\nhave been  spent on  the clothing  of the  deceased  leaving
\nRs.375\/for  the\t  upkeep  of   the  claimants\tper   month.
\nConsidering the\t earning of the deceased from his salary and
\nallowances from 1976 to 1996 the deceased would have spent a
\nsum of\tRs.1,28,131\/- being  25; of  the gross emoluments on
\nAppellants nos.\t 1 and\t2. The\taverage figure\tfor 20 years
\ncame to\t Rs.6406\/- per\tannum. This  was taken as the annual
\ndependency multiplicand\t and adopting  the multiplier of ]5,
\nfigure of  Rs.96060\/- was  arrived at.\tIt was\tnoticed that
\nfamily pension\tof Rs,200\/-  p.m. was available to appellant
\nno. 1,\twidow of  the deceased.\t On that  basis a  figure of
\nRs.36,000\/- was\t worked out  by adopting  multiplier  of  15
\n(that is  to say)  Rs.200\/- multiplied by 12 which lead to a
\nfigure of  Rs.2,400\/- multiplied  by 15.  These\t Rs.364000\/-
\nwere deducted  from Rs.96,090\/-\t and accordingly a figure of
\nRs.60,000\/-  was   reached.  10%  deduction  was  thereafter
\neffected from  the said\t figure and accordingly an amount of
\ncompensation of\t Rs.54,000\/- was worked out. Learned counsel
\nfor the\t appellants vehemently\tsubmitted that the aforesaid
\nmethods adopted by the Tribunal as well as by the High Court
\nfor competition\t of compensation  are not scientific at all.
\nThat both  for arriving\t at proper figure of multiplicand as
\nwell as\t multiplier  the  High\tCourt  had  adopted  a\tvery
\nconservative  approach.\t In  this  connection  reliance\t was
\nplaced on two decisions of this Court. In the case of Hardeo
\nkaur and  Ors. v.  Rajasthan State  Transport Corporation  &
\nAnr. (1992)  2 SCC 567, for computing compensation available
\nto  the\t  claimant-dependents  of   deceased  Major  in\t the
\nmilitary, who  died at\tthe age\t of 39\tbecause of vehicular
\naccident the Court adopted multiplier of 24. Strong reliance
\nwas  placed   on  the\tsaid  decision\t for  adopting\tthat
\nmultiplier. In\tour view  on the peculiar facts of that case
\nthe Court  had adopted\tmultiplier of 24. In paragraph 10 of
\nthe Report  no special\treasons were  assigned for  adopting
\nthat multiplier. However, a scientific basis for arriving at
\nproper multiplicand  and multiplier  is supplied by a latter
\ndecision of  this Court\t in the\t case  of  General  Manager,
\nKerala\tState  Road  Transport\tCorporation,  Trivandrum  v.
\nSusamma Thomas\t(Mrs.) &  Ors.<\/a> (1994)  2 SCC 176. A Division
\nBench of  this Court  consisting of  M.N. Venkatachaliah, J.
\n(as His\t Lordship then\twas) and  G.N. Ray, J. considered in
\ndetails\t appropriate   method\tfor   arriving\t at   proper
\nmultiplicand and  multiplier in\t fatal accident cases in the
\nlight of decided cases in this country as well as in England
\nand laid down principles for computing compensation in motor
\nvehicle accident  cases. In  paragraphs 12  and\t 13  of\t the
\nReport the following pertinent observations were made :\n<\/p>\n
     “There were two methods adopted for
\n     determination and\tfor  calculation
\n     of compensation  in fatal\taccident
\n     actions, the  first the  multiplier
\n     mentioned in  Davies case\tand  the
\n     second in Nance v. British Columbia
\n     Electric Railway Co. Ltd.
\n\t  The multiplier method involves
\n     the ascertainment\tof the\tloss  of
\n     dependency\t or   the   multiplicand
\n     having regard  to the circumstances
\n     of the  case and  capitalizing  the
\n     multiplicand  by\tan   appropriate
\n     multiplier.  The\tchoice\tof   the
\n     multiplier is determined by the age
\n     of the  deceased (or  that\t of  the
\n     claimants whichever  is higher) and
\n     by\t the   calculation  as\tto  what
\n     capital sum,  if invested at a rate
\n     of interest appropriate to a stable
\n     economy,\t would\t   yield     the
\n     multiplicand  by\tway  of\t  annual
\n     interest.\tIn   ascertaining  this,
\n     regard should  also be  had to  the
\n     fact that\tultimately  the\t capital
\n     sum should also be consumed-up over
\n     the period for which the dependency
\n     is expected to last.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Thereafter on  consideration of\t cases\tdecided\t by  English
\nCourts and  also observations  found in\t Halsbury’s Laws  of
\nEngland in vol.34, para 98, the Court laid down the test for
\nadopting the  multiplier in  such cases in paragraphs 16 and
\n17 of the Report as under :\n<\/p>\n
     “It is  necessary to reiterate that
\n     the multiplier  method is logically
\n     sound and legally well-established.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     There are\tsome  cases  which  have
\n     proceeded\t  to\tdetermine    the
\n     compensation  on\tthe   basis   of
\n     aggregating   the\t entire\t  future
\n     earnings for  over the  period  the
\n     life expectancy  was lost, deducted
\n     a\tpercentage   therefrom\t towards
\n     uncertainties of  future  life  and
\n     award   the    resulting\tsum   as
\n     compensation.   This   is\t clearly
\n     unscientific. For\tinstance, if the
\n     deceased was,  say 25  years of age
\n     at the  time of  death and the life
\n     expectancy is 70 years, this method
\n     would   multiply\t the   loss   of
\n     dependency for 45 years – virtually
\n     adopting a\t multiplier of\t45 – and
\n     even if  one-third or one-fourth is
\n     deducted  therefrom   towards   the
\n     uncertainties of  future  life  and
\n     for immediate lump sum payment, the
\n     effective\t multiplier   would   be
\n     between 30\t and 34.  This is wholly
\n     impermissible. We\tare, aware  that
\n     some decisions  of the  High Courts
\n     and of  this  Court  as  well  have
\n     arrived  at  compensation\ton  some
\n     such basis.  These decisions cannot
\n     be said to have laid down a settled
\n     principle.\t   They\t   are\t  merely
\n     instances of  particular awards  in
\n     individual cases. The proper method
\n     of computation  is the  multiplier-
\n     method.  A\t  departure,  except  in
\n     exceptional    and\t   extraordinary
\n     cases,\t  would\t       introduce
\n     inconsistency of principle, lack of
\n     uniformity\t and   an   element   of
\n     unpredictability for the assessment
\n     of compensation.  Some judgments of
\n     the High  Courts have  justified  a
\n     departure\t from\tthe   multiplier
\n     method on\tthe ground  that Section
\n     110-B of  the Motor  Vehicles  Act,
\n     1935 insofar  as it  envisages  the
\n     compensation  to\tbe  ‘just’,  the
\n     statutory determination of a ‘just’
\n     compensation  would  unshackle  the
\n     exercise from any rigid formula. It
\n     must be  borne  in\t mind  that  the
\n     multiplier method\tis the\taccepted
\n     method   of   ensuring   a\t  ‘just’
\n     compensation which\t will  make  for
\n     uniformity\t and  certainty\t of  the
\n     awards.   We    disapprove\t   these
\n     decisions of  the High Courts which
\n     have  taken  a  contrary  view.  We
\n     indicate that the multiplier method
\n     is\t the   appropriate   method,   a
\n     departure from  which can\tonly  be
\n     justified in rare and extraordinary
\n     circumstances and\tvery exceptional
\n     cases .\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  The multiplier  represents the
\n     number of\tyears’ purchase on which
\n     the   loss\t   of\tdependency    is
\n     capitalized. Take\tfor  instance  a
\n     case   where    annual   loss    of
\n     dependency is  Rs. 10,000. If a sum
\n     of Rs.  1,00,000 is invested at 10%
\n     annual interest,  the interest will
\n     take  care\t  of   the   dependency,
\n     perpetually. The multiplier in this
\n     case works\t out to\t 10. If the rate
\n     of interest is 5% per annum and not
\n     10% then  the multiplier  needed to
\n     capitalize the  loss of  the annula
\n     dependency at  Rs. 10,000\twould be\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     20. Then  the multiplier, i.e., the
\n     number of\tyears’\tpurchase  of  20
\n     will yield\t the  annual  dependency
\n     perpetually.  Then\t  allowance   to
\n     scale down he multiplier would have
\n     to be  made taking into account the
\n     uncertainties of  the  future,  the
\n     allowances for  immediate lump  sum
\n     payment, the  period over which the
\n     dependency is to last being shorter
\n     and the  capital feed  also  to  be
\n     spent  away   over\t the  period  of
\n     dependency is  to last etc. Usually
\n     in\t English  Courts  the  operative
\n     multiplier\t rarely\t exceeds  16  as
\n     maximum.  This   will   come   down
\n     accordingly as  the age of deceased
\n     person (or\t that of the dependents,
\n     whichever is higher) goes up.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
So  far\t  as  the  adoption  of\t the  proper  multiplier  is
\nconcerned, it  was observed  that the  future  prospects  of
\nadvancement in\tlife and  career should\t also be  sounded in
\nterms of money to augment the multiplicand. While the chance
\nof the\tmultiplier is determined by two factors, namely, the
\nrate of interest appropriate to a stable economy and the age
\nof the\tdeceased or of the claimant whichever is higher, the
\nascertainment  of  the\tmultiplicand  is  a  more  difficult
\nexercise. Indeed,  many factors\t have to  be  put  into\t the
\nscales to  evaluate the\t contingencies of  the\tfuture.\t All
\ncontingencies of the future need not necessarily be baneful.
\nApplying these\tprinciples to  the facts  of the case before
\nthis Court  in the  aforesaid case  it was observed that the
\ndeceased in that case was of 39 years of age. His income was
\nRs.1,032\/- per\tmonth. He  was more  or less on a stable job
\nand considering\t the  prospects\t of  advancement  in  future
\ncareer the  proper higher  estimate  of\t monthly  income  of
\nRs.2,000\/- as  gross income  to be  taken as  average  gross
\nfuture income  of the  deceased and deducting at least 1\/3rd
\ntherefrom  by  way  of\tpersonal  living  expenses,  had  he
\nsurvived the  loss of  dependency, could  be capitalized  by
\nadopting  the\tmultiplicand  of  Rs.1,400\/-  per  month  or
\nRs.17,000\/- per year and that figure could be capitalized by
\nadopting multiplier  of 12  which was appropriate to the age
\nof deceased  being 39  and to  that  amount  was  added\t the
\nconventional  figure  of  Rs.15,000\/-  by  way\tof  loss  of
\nconsortium and\tloss of estate. Adopting the same scientific
\nyardstick as  laid  down  in  the  aforesaid  judgment,\t the
\ncomputation of\tcompensation in\t the present case can almost
\nbe  subjected\tto  a  well  settled  mathematical  formula.
\nDeceased in  the present  case, as  seen above,\t was earning
\ngross salary  of Rs.1,543\/-  per  month.  Rounding  it\tupto
\nfigure of  Rs.1,500\/- and  keeping in  view all\t the  future
\nprospects which\t the deceased had in stable military service
\nin  the\t  light\t of   his  brilliant   academic\t record\t and
\nperformance in the military service spread over 7 years, and
\nalso keeping in view the other imponderables like accidental
\ndeath while  discharging military  duties and the hazards of
\nmilitary service,  it will  not be unreasonable to predicate
\nthat his gross monthly income would have shot up to at least
\ndouble than  what he  was earning  at the time of his death,
\ni.e., upto  Rs.3,000\/- per month had he survived in life and
\nhad successfully  completed his\t future military career till
\nthe time of superannuation. The average gross future monthly
\nincome could be arrived at by adding the actual gross income
\nat the\ttime of\t death, namely,\t Rs.1,500\/- per month to the
\nmaximum which  he would have otherwise got had he not died a
\npremature death,  i.e., Rs  3,000\/- per\t month and  dividing
\nthat figure  by two.  Thus the\taverage gross monthly income
\nspread over his entire future career, had it been available,
\nwould work out to Rs.4,500\/- divided by 2, i.e., Rs.2,200\/-.
\nRs.2,200\/- per\tmonth would  have  been\t the  gross  monthly
\naverage income\tavailable to  the family of the deceased had
\nhe survived  as a  bread winner.  From\tthat  gross  monthly
\nincome at least 1\/3rd will have to be deducted by way of his
\npersonal expenses  and other  liabilities  like\t payment  of
\nincome tax  etc. That would roughly work out to Rs.730\/- per
\nmonth but  even taking a higher figure of Rs.750\/- per month
\nand deducting  the same\t by way of average personal expenses
\nof the deceased from the average gross earning of Rs.2,200\/-
\nper month  balance of  Rs.1,450\/- which can be rounded up to
\nRs.1,500\/- per\tmonth would  have been\tthe  average  amount
\navailable  to\tthe  family   of  the  deceased,  i.e.,\t his
\ndependents, namely,  appellants herein.\t It is\tthis  figure
\nwhich would  be the  datum figure  per month which on annual
\nbasis would work out to Rs.18,000\/-. Rs.18,000\/-, therefore,
\nwould be  the proper  multiplicand which  would be available
\nfor capitalization  for computing  the future  economic loss
\nsuffered by  the appellants  on account of untimely death of
\nthe bread  winner. As  the age\tof the deceased was 27 years
\nand a  few months,  at the  time of  his  death\t the  proper
\nmultiplier in  the light  of the  aforesaid decision of this
\nCourt  in  General  Manager,  Kerala  State  Road  Transport
\nCorporation, Trivandrum\t (supra) would\tbe  15.\t Rs.18,000\/-
\nmultiplied by  15 will\twork out  to Rs.2,70,000\/-.  To this
\nfigure will  have to  be added\tthe conventional  figure  of
\nRs.15,000\/- by\tway of\tloss of\t estate and  consortium etc.
\nThat will  lead to  a total figure of Rs.2,85,000\/-. This is
\nthe amount  which the appellants would be entitled to get by
\nway of\tcompensation from respondents nos.1 and 2 subject to
\nour decision on point no.2.\n<\/p>\n
Point No.2\n<\/p>\n
———-\n<\/p>\n
     So far  as the  question of  contributory negligence of
\ndeceased Rama  Kant is\tconcerned, the\tphotography  of\t the
\nplace of  accident is  to be  kept  in\tview.  The  accident
\noccurred in the city of Gwalior, on the cross section of two
\nroads. One  road was proceeding from Gola-Ka-Mandir situated
\non the\twestern\t side  and  was\t running  eastwards  towards
\nanother locality known as J&K. It was thus running from west
\nto east.  It was  25 ft. broad. It was known as Road No.7. A
\nnarrow gauge  railway line  was running parallel to the said
\nroad on\t its southern  side. At\t one place  on the  northern
\nborder of road no.7 converged another public road from north
\nto south.  The said  road  was\tapproaching  Chandra  Prasth
\nColony on  the southern\t side. It is an admitted position on
\nrecord that  the offending  truck driven  by respondent no.2
\nwas plying  on road  no.7 and was coming from Gola-Ka-Mandir
\nside  and  was\tproceeding  towards  J&K  locality  situated
\ntowards eastern side. Thus the truck was coming on road no.7
\nfrom west  to east.  So far as the deceased was concerned he
\nwas coming  on a scooter along with the pillion rider on the
\nnorth-south road  leading towards  Chandra Prasth Colony. It
\nis also\t on record  that at  the intersection  of the north-
\nsouth road  on which the scooter was travelling the deceased
\nwas plying his scooter from north towards south. It has also
\nbeen found  from the  record that  at  the  intersection  of
\nnorthsouth road\t with road no,7 the scooterist Rama Kant had
\nalready entered\t the intersection  and had  come almost half
\nway so\tfar as\tthe breadth  of road  no,7 was concerned, In
\nother  words   the  scooterist\t had  already\tentered\t the
\nintersection and  was on the middle of the said intersection
\nwhen the truck coming from the west dashed with the scooter,
\nEvidence of  appellants-witness no.7 Ramji Sherma shows that
\nafter Rama  Kant had  crossed the  center of  road no.7\t the
\noffending truck coming from the western side came with speed
\nand dashed  with the  scooter. The result was that the right
\nside of the scooter dashed with the left side front wheel of
\nthe truck. Witness Ramji Sharma, appellants-witness no.7 was
\nthe pillion  rider on  the scooter, Therefore, he was in the
\nbest position  to depose as to what had actually happened on
\nthe spot,  Witness Ramji Sharma stated that while proceeding
\nfrom north  to south  on  the  Chandra\tPrasth\tColony\troad
\ndeceased Rama  Kant had\t already sounded  the horn  when  he
\nentered the intersection and he had also given a hand signal
\nto indicate  that he  intended to  go across  road no.7\t for
\napproaching the\t southern side\tof road no.7, having entered
\nfrom the  northern side\t of the\t intersection. That  at\t the
\nrelevant time  there was no other truck on road no.7 running
\nfrom west  to east.  The exact\tspot of\t the accident on the
\nintersection of\t road  no.7  with  the\tnorth-south  Chandra
\nPrasth\tColony\t road  3150   appears  to   have  been\twell
\nestablished on\tthe record  of the case. It has been brought
\nout in evidence that Rama Kant’s scooter had a coat of green
\npaint and it was the left side of the truck’s bumper and the
\ntruck’s left  front wheel  surface that\t showed green  paint
\nmarks. The  left head-light  of the  truck  was\t also  found
\ndamaged after the accident. There was no evidence that right
\nside of\t the bumper  of the truck bore any green paint marks
\nor any damage as a result of the collision between the truck
\nand the\t scooter Witness Ramji Sharma did not appear to have
\nreceived any  serious injuries.\t This was  apparent from his
\nstatement that he had been in his senses right from the time
\nhe was lifted off the road upto the time he was removed in a
\ncar to\tthe hospital.  Dr Jain,\t Appellants-witness no.3 who
\nhad performed  post-mortem on  the deceased had deposed that
\nhe had\tfound five ante-mortem external injuries on the dead
\nbody of\t the deceased  and they\t were all on his right side.
\nThere was abrasion on the right temple and the right side of
\nthe face.  There was  another abrasion\ton the right side of
\nthe chest  and the right shoulder with fracture on the upper
\nhalf of\t the right  humerus. There  was an  abrasion on\t the
\nright side  of the  waist. There  was another  abrasion over
\nright thigh  and right\tknee. The  last abrasion  was on the
\nright leg  and the  right ankle\t with fracture\tof the femur
\nnear the  knee joint, This clearly indicated that the impact
\nof the\tfront left  wheel of the truck was on the right side
\nof the\tscooter driver,\t Rama Kant. That clearly showed that
\nRama Kant  was travelling  inside the  intersection  on\t the
\nnorth-south road  from north  to south\twhen the truck which
\ncame from the western side dashed with the scooter and threw
\noff the\t scooter  driver  and  the  pillion  rider.  It\t is,
\ntherefore,  clearly   established  that\t while\tRame  Kant’s
\nscooter had  crossed the  center of  road no.7 the offending
\ntruck coming  from the\twestern side  dashed with  the right
\nside of\t the scooter-  which was proceeding across that road
\nand was\t going towards the southern side of the intersection
\nhaving entered\tthe same  on the northern side of road no.7.
\nSo far\tas the\texact place of impact on the intersection is
\nconcerned we  may note that the photographs Ex.P\/11, P\/8 and
\nP\/7 indicated that the scooter lay at the distance of 11 ft.
\nfrom the  northern border of road no. 7. As seen earlier the
\nwidth of  the road  was 25  ft. The scooter was lying almost
\nlengthwise on the road with its rear wheel towards the west,
\nthat it, towards the direction from which the truck had come
\nand had\t approached the\t intersection. The  scooter’s  front
\nportion was  towards the  west and its underside was towards
\nthe south. The photographs also showed that the dead body of
\nRama Kant  was lying slightly diagonally across the width of
\nthe road.  The head  was pointing slightly to the south-west
\nof the\tcenter of the road. The distance between the scooter
\nand the\t dead body  was 6 ft. In other words any one walking
\nfrom west  to east  on road no. 7 would have first passed by
\nthe dead  body of  Rama Kant  and then would have approached
\nthe fallen  scooter. It\t was, therefore, clearly established
\nthat the  collision between  he truck  and the\tscooter\t had
\noccurred somewhere  near the center of road no. 7. It showed
\nthat the  scooter had  already entered the intersection from
\nthe northern border of road no. 7, had travelled upto 11 ft.
\nacross the  width of  the road\tat the said intersection and
\nbut for\t the accident  it would have travelled further south
\nand would  have passed\tthrough the  southern outlet  of the
\nintersection. It,  therefore, becomes apparent that when the
\nscooterist had\tentered the  intersection from\tthe northern
\nside and  had covered  almost half the distance of the width
\nof that\t intersection the  offending  truck  came  from\t the
\nwestern side and dashed against the scooter and threw it off
\nalong with  the driver and the pillion rider. That indicated
\nhow fast  the truck would have been driven from west to east
\non the\tmain road  and because\tof that speed the scooterist
\nwho had\t already crossed  half the  width of  the road,\t was
\nthrown off.  That also\tindicated that\tthe  driver  of\t the
\ntruck, respondent  no.2 had  not cared to ses the scooterist
\nwho had almost reached half way across his path while he was
\nproceeding from west to east on road no.7 and without caring
\nfor the safety of the scooterist who would have been clearly
\nvisible to  him in  the broad  day light while he was coming
\nfrom  the  western  side  of  the  road\t and  without  least
\nbothering for  the safety  of the  scooterist  crossing\t the
\nintersection. He  almost ran  over the\tscooter and threw it
\noff. It is true that the injuries noted by the doctor in the
\npostmortem report did not indicate that the deceased was run
\nover by\t the wheel of the truck but the severe impact caused
\nby the\taccident all  on the  right side  of the body of the
\ndeceased indicated  the fierce collision between the scooter
\nand the\t front left  wheel of the truck. There would thus be
\ntwo types of negligence on the part of the truck driver, (i)
\nhe was\tproceeding with\t very high  speed even though he was
\napproaching an\tintersection on\t that  road;  and  (ii)\t the
\ndriver did  not care  to look  out for\tthe  safety  of\t the
\nscooterist who\thad already crossed half of the intersection
\nand almost  come to  the middle\t of the intersection and who
\nwould naturally\t be very  much visible\tto the\ttruck driver
\ncoming from  the western  side and  proceeding\ttowards\t the
\neast. The driver, respondent no.2, did not care even to slow
\ndown his  speed. If he had done so, the unfortunate accident
\nwould not  have taken  place. This showed that either he did
\nnot notice  the scooterist  who had  come  almost  half\t way
\ndiagonally  across   the  breadth   of\tthe   road  at\t the
\nintersection or\t that he might not have cared for the safety
\nof the\tscooterist shoo\t had come  across his path. This was
\nthe  most   reckless  and  unsafe  driving  resorted  to  by
\nrespondent no.2.  The fact  that even  after the accident he
\nbad not\t slowed down  his vehicle  and went  on driving with
\ngreat speed,  is fully\testablished by the further fact that
\neven after  the accident,  his vehicle\tcould not stop there
\nand then  but had travelled further and had gone upto 70 ft.
\nfurther and  had then stopped near the south-eastern side of
\nthe road  after the collision. The conclusion is, therefore,
\ninevitable that\t respondent no.2 while driving the offending
\ntruck was  in a\t position to see in them broad day light the
\nscooterist  Rama   Kant\t who   had   already   entered\t the
\nintersection and  was almost  half  way\t in  it,  still\t had
\ncontinued to  drive recklessly in a totally careless manner.
\nBecause respondent no.2 was not having a driving licence, he
\nwas a  novice trying  to learn driving such heavy vehicle at
\nthe cost  of such  innocent victims  like Rama Kant. Being a
\nnovice\the   went  on\tdriving\t fast\tbefore\t approaching
\nintersection of\t road no.7 and could not control his vehicle
\nby stopping  it or  by\tslowing\t it  down  so  as  to  avoid
\ncollision with\tthe scooterist\twho had come across his way.
\nResultantly he dashed with the scooter in the center of road
\nno.7 with  the left  side front wheel of his truck which hit
\nthe right  hand side  of the  scooterist Rama  Kant and\t his
\nscooter. As  seen above having thrown off the scooterist and
\nthe pillion  rider respondent  no.2 could  not\tcontrol\t his
\nvehicle which  was in such speed that he could bring it to a
\nhalt after  travelling further\tto the\textent of 70 ft. and
\nthen it\t proceeded towards  the wrong  side of\tthe road and
\nhalted near  the  southern  side  of  road  no.7  after\t the
\ncollision All  these tell-tale\tfacts unequivocally point to
\none and\t only conclusion  that it was the rash and negligent
\ndriving by  respondent no.2,  a young boy aged 20, who was a
\nnovice driver without a licence to drive such heavy vehicle,
\nthat had  caused this  unfortunate accident.  Deceased\tRama
\nKant was not at all negligent and had not contributed to the
\naccident save  and except to the extent of bringing his body
\nfor being subjected to the impact of the on-coming truck. If
\nat all, his only contribution was that he became a victim of
\nthis accident  by being\t on spot on that fateful morning. It
\nis, therefore,\tnot  possible  for  us\tto  agree  with\t the
\ncontention of the learned counsel for respondents nos. 1 and
\n2 that deceased Rama Kant had contributed to the accident by
\nhis own\t negligence to\tthe extent  of 75%  or even  to\t the
\nextent of  any lesser  percentage. On this evidence the High
\nCourt was  justified in\t reversing the\tfinding of the Trial
\nCourt that  deceased Rama  Kant was  guilty of\tcontributory
\nnegligence to  the extent  of 75%.  It\tmust  be  held\tthat
\ndeceased Rama  Kant was\t not at all negligent and the entire
\ncent percent negligence rested on the shoulder of respondent
\nno.2, driver  of the truck. It is also not possible to agree
\nwith the contention of learned counsel for respondents nos.1
\nand 2  that deceased  Rama Kant\t was  guilty  of  breach  of
\nRegulation (7)\tof Tenth Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act.
\n1939. That regulation read as under :\n<\/p>\n
     “7. The  driver of\t a motor vehicle
\n     shall,   on    entering   a    road
\n     intersection, if  the road\t enacted
\n     is a  main road designated as such,
\n     give way to the vehicles proceeding
\n     along that\t road, and  in any other
\n     case  give\t  way  to   all\t traffic
\n     approaching the intersection on his
\n     right hand.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
On the facts of the present case it is well established from
\nthe evidence  of pillion  rider\t Ramji\tSharma,\t appellants-
\nwitness no  7 that  while entering the intersection from the
\nnorthern side  of road no.7 deceased had already sounded the
\nhorn and  had also  given a  hand signal to indicate that he
\nintended to  go across\troad no.7. There was no occasion for
\nhim to\thalt and  give way  to the  truck  coming  from\t the
\nwestern side and proceeding towards the eastern side of road
\nno.7 for  the simple  reason  that  Rama  Kant\thad  already
\nentered the  intersection and  had travelled almost half way
\nacross the  breadth  of\t road  no.7.  In  the  meantime\t the
\noffending truck\t came with great speed from the western side
\nand dashed  against the\t scooter Regulation  (7) could\thave
\nbeen pressed in service against deceased Rama Kant if it was
\nshown that  while entering the intersection, having seen the
\non-coming truck\t from his  right hand  side he had not taken
\ndue precaution.\t Such a\t situation,  on\t the  facts  of\t the
\npresent case,  is found\t to be\tabsent. On  the\t other\thand
\nrespondent no.2 driving the offending truck on the main road
\nno.7 from  west to east is shown to have committed breach of
\nRegulation (6)\tof the\tvery same  Schedule  which  read  as
\nunder:\n<\/p>\n
     “6. The  driver of\t a motor vehicle
\n     shall slow\t down when approaching a
\n     road intersection,\t a road junction
\n     or a  road corner,\t and  shall  not
\n     enter  any\t  such\tintersection  or
\n     junction until  he has become aware
\n     that   he\t may   do   so\t without
\n     endangering the  safety of\t persons
\n     thereon.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Respondent no.2\t was required to slow down while approaching
\nthe road  intersection or junction and as he had not done so
\nbut went  on driving  with full\t speed the  offending  truck
\nwhich threw off the scooterist who was already in the middle
\nof the\tintersection, he  was guilty of breach of Regulation
\n(6) of\tTenth Schedule\tand had endangered the safety of the
\npersons\t crowing   the\tsaid  road  at\tthe  relevant  time.
\nConsequently the  recklessness and negligence in driving the
\noffending truck\t at the\t relevant time\twholly rest  on\t the
\nshoulder of  respondent\t no.2.\tPoint  No.2  is,  therefore,
\nanswered in  the negative.  Hence there\t is no\tquestion  of
\nslicing down  any amount  from the compensation held payable
\nto the claimants as per our findings on point no.1 above.
\nPoint No.3\n<\/p>\n
———-\n<\/p>\n
     Now is  the time  for us  to bring down the curtain. In
\nview of\t our findings on point nos. 1 and 2 above the appeal
\nis allowed.  The judgment and order passed by the High Court
\nas well\t as the\t Claims Tribunal  are set  aside. The  Claim
\nPetition  filed\t  by  the   appellants\tis  allowed  against
\nrespondent nos.\t 1 and\t2 who  are ordered  to pay the total
\ncompensation of Rs.2,85,000\/-. The Claim Petition will stand
\nallowed to  that extent.  On  the  said\t awarded  amount  of
\nRs.2,85,000\/- the respondent nos. 1 and 2 shall also pay 12%
\ninterest from the date of the Claim Petition till payment of
\nthe aforesaid amount to the appellants or its realization by
\nthem.  The  Claim  Petition  will  stand  dismissed  against
\nrespondent no.3,  the insurance company. In view of the fact
\nthat the  success is  divided between the parties there will
\nbe no order as to costs all throughout.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Smt Sarla Dixit & Anr vs Balwant Yadav & Ors on 29 February, 1996 Equivalent citations: 1996 AIR 1274, 1996 SCC (3) 179 Author: M S.B. Bench: Majmudar S.B. (J) PETITIONER: SMT SARLA DIXIT & ANR. Vs. RESPONDENT: BALWANT YADAV & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 29\/02\/1996 BENCH: MAJMUDAR S.B. (J) BENCH: […]<\/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-146668","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nSmt Sarla Dixit & Anr vs Balwant Yadav & Ors on 29 February, 1996 - 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-sarla-dixit-anr-vs-balwant-yadav-ors-on-29-february-1996\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Smt Sarla Dixit & Anr vs Balwant Yadav & Ors on 29 February, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-sarla-dixit-anr-vs-balwant-yadav-ors-on-29-february-1996\" \/>\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=\"1996-02-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-12-18T14:34:15+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=\"32 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-sarla-dixit-anr-vs-balwant-yadav-ors-on-29-february-1996#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-sarla-dixit-anr-vs-balwant-yadav-ors-on-29-february-1996\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Smt Sarla Dixit & Anr vs Balwant Yadav & Ors on 29 February, 1996\",\"datePublished\":\"1996-02-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-18T14:34:15+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-sarla-dixit-anr-vs-balwant-yadav-ors-on-29-february-1996\"},\"wordCount\":6406,\"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\\\/smt-sarla-dixit-anr-vs-balwant-yadav-ors-on-29-february-1996#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-sarla-dixit-anr-vs-balwant-yadav-ors-on-29-february-1996\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-sarla-dixit-anr-vs-balwant-yadav-ors-on-29-february-1996\",\"name\":\"Smt Sarla Dixit & Anr vs Balwant Yadav & Ors on 29 February, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1996-02-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-18T14:34:15+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-sarla-dixit-anr-vs-balwant-yadav-ors-on-29-february-1996#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-sarla-dixit-anr-vs-balwant-yadav-ors-on-29-february-1996\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-sarla-dixit-anr-vs-balwant-yadav-ors-on-29-february-1996#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Smt Sarla Dixit & Anr vs Balwant Yadav & Ors on 29 February, 1996\"}]},{\"@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 Sarla Dixit & Anr vs Balwant Yadav & Ors on 29 February, 1996 - 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-sarla-dixit-anr-vs-balwant-yadav-ors-on-29-february-1996","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Smt Sarla Dixit & Anr vs Balwant Yadav & Ors on 29 February, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-sarla-dixit-anr-vs-balwant-yadav-ors-on-29-february-1996","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1996-02-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-12-18T14:34:15+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":"32 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-sarla-dixit-anr-vs-balwant-yadav-ors-on-29-february-1996#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-sarla-dixit-anr-vs-balwant-yadav-ors-on-29-february-1996"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Smt Sarla Dixit & Anr vs Balwant Yadav & Ors on 29 February, 1996","datePublished":"1996-02-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-18T14:34:15+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-sarla-dixit-anr-vs-balwant-yadav-ors-on-29-february-1996"},"wordCount":6406,"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\/smt-sarla-dixit-anr-vs-balwant-yadav-ors-on-29-february-1996#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-sarla-dixit-anr-vs-balwant-yadav-ors-on-29-february-1996","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-sarla-dixit-anr-vs-balwant-yadav-ors-on-29-february-1996","name":"Smt Sarla Dixit & Anr vs Balwant Yadav & Ors on 29 February, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1996-02-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-18T14:34:15+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-sarla-dixit-anr-vs-balwant-yadav-ors-on-29-february-1996#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-sarla-dixit-anr-vs-balwant-yadav-ors-on-29-february-1996"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-sarla-dixit-anr-vs-balwant-yadav-ors-on-29-february-1996#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Smt Sarla Dixit & Anr vs Balwant Yadav & Ors on 29 February, 1996"}]},{"@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\/146668","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=146668"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/146668\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=146668"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=146668"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=146668"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}