{"id":154335,"date":"2009-05-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-05-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-ram-kali-vs-sh-ram-kuber-ors-on-4-may-2009"},"modified":"2015-08-21T07:54:07","modified_gmt":"2015-08-21T02:24:07","slug":"smt-ram-kali-vs-sh-ram-kuber-ors-on-4-may-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-ram-kali-vs-sh-ram-kuber-ors-on-4-may-2009","title":{"rendered":"Smt. Ram Kali vs Sh. Ram Kuber & Ors. on 4 May, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court<\/div>\n
Smt. Ram Kali vs Sh. Ram Kuber & Ors. on 4 May, 2009<\/div>\n
Author: Kailash Gambhir<\/div>\n
       * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI\n\n+                        FAO No. 288\/1999\n\n                                      Judgment reserved on:22.01.2008\n%                                     Judgment delivered on: 4.5.2009\n\nSmt.Ram Kali    .                              ...... Appellants\n                         Through: Ms.Manpreet Kaur, Advocate\n\n                                      versus\n\n\nSh. Ram Kuber & Ors.                             ..... Respondents\n                   Through: Nemo\n\n\nCORAM:\nHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR\n\n1.   Whether the Reporters of local papers may\n     be allowed to see the judgment?                      NO\n\n2.   To be referred to Reporter or not?                   NO\n\n3.   Whether the judgment should be reported              NO\n     in the Digest?\n\n\nKAILASH GAMBHIR, J.\n<\/pre>\n
1.    The present appeal arises out of the award dated 22\/3\/1999 of<\/p>\n
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whereby the Tribunal awarded a<\/p>\n
sum of Rs. 98,000\/- along with interest @ 12% per annum to the<\/p>\n
claimants.\n<\/p>\n
2.    The brief conspectus of the facts is as follows:<\/p>\n
                    FAO No.288\/1999                                  Page 1 of 8<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
 3.   On 20.01.88 at about 11.10 a.m., the deceased Babu Singh was<\/p>\n
going from Shahdara towards Bihari Colony on his cycle. When the<\/p>\n
deceased reached at Loni Road near Rathi Mills all of a sudden a truck<\/p>\n
no. DLG 5374 which was being driven by respondent no.1 at a very<\/p>\n
high speed, rashly and negligently hit the deceased from behind as a<\/p>\n
result of which the deceased fell down on the road and he received<\/p>\n
fatal injuries. He was removed to GTB Hospital where he remained<\/p>\n
alive for 12 days but thereafter died in the GTB Hospital due to the<\/p>\n
fatal injuries received by him in the accident.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
4.   A claim petition was filed on 16\/12\/1988 and an award was<\/p>\n
passed on 22\/3\/1999. Aggrieved with the said award enhancement is<\/p>\n
claimed by way of the present appeal.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
5.   Ms. Manpreet Kaur counsel for the appellants contended that the<\/p>\n
tribunal erred in assessing the income of the deceased as per the<\/p>\n
wages for an unskilled workman whereas after looking at the facts and<\/p>\n
circumstances of the case the tribunal should have assessed the<\/p>\n
income of the deceased as per the wages for a skilled workman as the<\/p>\n
deceased was a tailor. The counsel contended that the tribunal has<\/p>\n
erred in not awarding compensation towards loss of love & affection,<\/p>\n
funeral expenses, loss of estate, loss of consortium, mental pain and<\/p>\n
                  FAO No.288\/1999                             Page 2 of 8<\/span>
\n sufferings and the loss of services, which were being rendered by the<\/p>\n
deceased to the appellants. The counsel maintained that the tribunal<\/p>\n
committed serious error in holding that the insurance company was<\/p>\n
exempted from payment of compensation when the driver had a valid<\/p>\n
driving licence at the time of the accident. The counsel submitted that<\/p>\n
even if the insurance company was not liable, then also the tribunal<\/p>\n
could have directed insurance company to pay the amount first and<\/p>\n
then recover it from the owner and driver of the vehicle.<\/p>\n
6.   Nobody has appeared for the respondents.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
7.   I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the<\/p>\n
record.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
8.   The appellants claimants had not brought on record any<\/p>\n
documentary evidence, therefore the tribunal assessed the income of<\/p>\n
the deceased as per the minimum wages notified for an unskilled<\/p>\n
workman. It is no more res integra that mere bald assertions regarding<\/p>\n
the income of the deceased are of no help to the claimants in the<\/p>\n
absence of any reliable evidence being brought on record. The thumb<\/p>\n
rule is that in the absence of clear and cogent evidence pertaining to<\/p>\n
income of the deceased learned Tribunal should determine income of<\/p>\n
the deceased on the basis of the minimum wages notified under the
\n                  FAO No.288\/1999                              Page 3 of 8<\/span>
\n Minimum Wages Act. After considering all these factors, I am of the<\/p>\n
view that the tribunal erred in assessing the income of the deceased as<\/p>\n
per the minimum wages notified for an unskilled workman while he<\/p>\n
should have assessed the same as per the minimum wages notified for<\/p>\n
a skilled workman. Therefore, the award is modified to this extent.<\/p>\n
9.   However, it has been the consistent view of this court that<\/p>\n
whenever aid of Minimum Wages Act is taken while computing income,<\/p>\n
then increase in minimum wages should also be considered. It is well<\/p>\n
settled that future prospects are not akin to increase in minimum<\/p>\n
wages. To neutralize increase in cost of living and price index, the<\/p>\n
minimum wages are increased from time to time. A perusal of the<\/p>\n
minimum wages notified under the Minimum Wages Act show that to<\/p>\n
neutralize increase in inflation and cost of living, minimum wages<\/p>\n
virtually double after every 10 years. For instance, minimum wages of<\/p>\n
skilled labourers as on 1.1.1980 was Rs. 320\/- per month and same<\/p>\n
rose to Rs. 1,083\/- per month in the year 1990. Meaning thereby, from<\/p>\n
year 1980 to year 1990, there there has been an increase of nearly<\/p>\n
238% in the minimum wages. Thus, it could safely be assumed that<\/p>\n
income of the deceased would have doubled in the next 10 years.<\/p>\n
                  FAO No.288\/1999                               Page 4 of 8<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
 10.   Therefore, the tribunal erred in not considering increase in<\/p>\n
minimum wages, while assessing the income of the deceased and<\/p>\n
same should be considered while computing compensation towards<\/p>\n
loss of dependency.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
11.   On the contention regarding that the tribunal erred in not<\/p>\n
granting adequate compensation towards funeral expenses, and no<\/p>\n
compensation has been granted towards loss of love & affection, loss<\/p>\n
of estate and the loss of services, which were being rendered by the<\/p>\n
deceased to the appellants. In this regard compensation towards loss<\/p>\n
of love and affection is awarded at Rs. 10,000\/-; compensation towards<\/p>\n
funeral expenses is enhanced to Rs. 10,000\/- and compensation<\/p>\n
towards loss of estate is awarded at Rs. 10,000\/-.<\/p>\n
12.   As far as the contention pertaining to the award of amount<\/p>\n
towards mental pain and sufferings caused to the appellant due to the<\/p>\n
sudden demise of her only son and the loss of services, which were<\/p>\n
being rendered by the deceased to the appellants is concerned, I do<\/p>\n
not feel inclined to award any amount as compensation towards the<\/p>\n
same as the same are not conventional heads of damages.<\/p>\n
13.   On the basis of the discussion, the income of the deceased would<\/p>\n
come to Rs. 976.50\/- after doubling Rs. 651\/- to Rs. 1,302\/- and after<\/p>\n
                  FAO No.288\/1999                             Page 5 of 8<\/span>
\n taking the mean of them. After making 1\/3rd deductions the monthly<\/p>\n
loss of dependency comes to Rs. 651\/- and the annual loss of<\/p>\n
dependency comes to Rs. 7,812\/- per annum and after applying<\/p>\n
multiplier of 16 it comes to Rs. 1,24,992\/-. Thus, the total loss of<\/p>\n
dependency comes to Rs. 1,24,992\/-. After considering Rs. 30,000\/-,<\/p>\n
which     is    granted   towards      non-pecuniary   damages,   the   total<\/p>\n
compensation comes out as Rs. 1,54,992\/-.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
14.     As regards the issue of putting liability on the insurance company<\/p>\n
in the first place and then directing its recovery from the owner and<\/p>\n
driver of the offending vehicle, it has been proved beyond doubt that<\/p>\n
the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid driving<\/p>\n
licence at the time of the accident. In National Insurance Co. Ltd.<\/p>\n
v. Swaran Singh and Others<\/a>                [(2004) 3 SCC 297], the Court<\/p>\n
noticed an earlier decision of the Supreme Court, namely, Malla<\/p>\n
Prakasarao v. Malla           Janaki and Others [(2004) 3 SCC 343]<\/p>\n
wherein one of the members of the             Bench, V.N. Khare, J. (as the<\/p>\n
learned Chief Justice then was) was a member. In that case, it was<\/p>\n
held:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
               “1. It is not disputed that the driving licence of the
\n               driver of the vehicle had expired on 20-11-1982
\n               and the driver did not apply for renewal within 30<\/p>\n
                     FAO No.288\/1999                                Page 6 of 8<\/span>
\n           days of the expiry of the said licence, as required
\n          under Section 11 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.
\n          It is also not disputed that the driver of the vehicle
\n          did    not   have   driving  licence  when    the  accident
\n          took place. According to the terms of the contract,
\n          the Insurance Company has no liability to pay any
\n          compensation where an accident takes place by a
\n          vehicle,   driven    by    a   driver without    a  driving
\n          licence. In that view of the matter, we do not find
\n          any merit in the appeal.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
15.   The Apex Court in Sohan Lal Passi v. P. Sesh Reddy and Ors.<\/p>\n
MANU\/SC\/0662\/1996<\/a> has held that breach on the part of the owner<\/p>\n
should be so fundamental so as to entitle the insurance company to<\/p>\n
claim complete exoneration from its liability to pay the insurance<\/p>\n
amount.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
16.   In Swaran Singh (Supra), the Apex Court also observed as<\/p>\n
under:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
          “Under the Motor Vehicles Act, holding of a valid driving licence
\n          is one of the conditions of contract of insurance. Driving of a
\n          vehicle without a valid licence is an offence. However, the
\n          question herein is whether a third party involved in an accident
\n          is entitled to the amount of compensation granted by the Motor
\n          Accidents Claims Tribunal although the driver of the vehicle at
\n          the relevant time might not have a valid driving licence but
\n          would be entitled to recover the same from the owner or driver
\n          thereof.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          It is trite that where the insurers, relying upon the provisions of
\n          violation of law by the assured, take an exception to pay the
\n          assured or a third party, they must prove a wilful violation of
\n          the law by the assured. In some cases violation of criminal law,
\n          particularly, violation of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act
\n          may result in absolving the insurers but, the same may not
\n          necessarily hold good in the case of a third party. In any event,<\/p>\n
                  FAO No.288\/1999                                         Page 7 of 8<\/span>
\n            the exception applies only to acts done intentionally or “so
\n           recklessly as to denote that the assured did not care what the
\n           consequences of his act might be.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
17.   In view of the above discussion, I find violation on the part of the<\/p>\n
driver of the offending vehicle, was not proved to be intentional by the<\/p>\n
insurance company. Therefore, the insurance company although has<\/p>\n
no liability in the instant case but is liable to pay the award amount in<\/p>\n
the first place and then shall recover it from the owner and driver.<\/p>\n
18.   In view of the above discussion, the total compensation is<\/p>\n
enhanced to Rs. 1,54,992\/- from Rs. 98,000\/- with interest on the<\/p>\n
differential amount @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the<\/p>\n
petition till realisation and the same shall be paid to the appellant by<\/p>\n
the respondent nos. 1 and 2, who are jointly and severally liable within<\/p>\n
30 days of this order.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
19.   With the above directions, the present appeal is disposed of.<\/p>\n
04th May,2009                                 KAILASH GAMBHIR, J\n\n\n\n\n                  FAO No.288\/1999                                     Page 8 of 8<\/span>\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court Smt. Ram Kali vs Sh. Ram Kuber & Ors. on 4 May, 2009 Author: Kailash Gambhir * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO No. 288\/1999 Judgment reserved on:22.01.2008 % Judgment delivered on: 4.5.2009 Smt.Ram Kali . …… Appellants Through: Ms.Manpreet Kaur, Advocate versus Sh. Ram Kuber & […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-154335","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSmt. Ram Kali vs Sh. Ram Kuber & Ors. on 4 May, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-ram-kali-vs-sh-ram-kuber-ors-on-4-may-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Smt. Ram Kali vs Sh. Ram Kuber & Ors. on 4 May, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-ram-kali-vs-sh-ram-kuber-ors-on-4-may-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-05-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-08-21T02:24:07+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=\"9 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-ram-kali-vs-sh-ram-kuber-ors-on-4-may-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-ram-kali-vs-sh-ram-kuber-ors-on-4-may-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Smt. Ram Kali vs Sh. Ram Kuber & Ors. on 4 May, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-05-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-21T02:24:07+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-ram-kali-vs-sh-ram-kuber-ors-on-4-may-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1632,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Delhi High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-ram-kali-vs-sh-ram-kuber-ors-on-4-may-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-ram-kali-vs-sh-ram-kuber-ors-on-4-may-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-ram-kali-vs-sh-ram-kuber-ors-on-4-may-2009\",\"name\":\"Smt. Ram Kali vs Sh. Ram Kuber & Ors. on 4 May, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-05-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-21T02:24:07+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-ram-kali-vs-sh-ram-kuber-ors-on-4-may-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-ram-kali-vs-sh-ram-kuber-ors-on-4-may-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-ram-kali-vs-sh-ram-kuber-ors-on-4-may-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Smt. Ram Kali vs Sh. Ram Kuber & Ors. on 4 May, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Smt. Ram Kali vs Sh. Ram Kuber & Ors. on 4 May, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-ram-kali-vs-sh-ram-kuber-ors-on-4-may-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Smt. Ram Kali vs Sh. Ram Kuber & Ors. on 4 May, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-ram-kali-vs-sh-ram-kuber-ors-on-4-may-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-05-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-08-21T02:24:07+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-ram-kali-vs-sh-ram-kuber-ors-on-4-may-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-ram-kali-vs-sh-ram-kuber-ors-on-4-may-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Smt. Ram Kali vs Sh. Ram Kuber & Ors. on 4 May, 2009","datePublished":"2009-05-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-21T02:24:07+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-ram-kali-vs-sh-ram-kuber-ors-on-4-may-2009"},"wordCount":1632,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Delhi High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-ram-kali-vs-sh-ram-kuber-ors-on-4-may-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-ram-kali-vs-sh-ram-kuber-ors-on-4-may-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-ram-kali-vs-sh-ram-kuber-ors-on-4-may-2009","name":"Smt. Ram Kali vs Sh. Ram Kuber & Ors. on 4 May, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-05-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-21T02:24:07+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-ram-kali-vs-sh-ram-kuber-ors-on-4-may-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-ram-kali-vs-sh-ram-kuber-ors-on-4-may-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-ram-kali-vs-sh-ram-kuber-ors-on-4-may-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Smt. Ram Kali vs Sh. Ram Kuber & Ors. on 4 May, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/154335","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=154335"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/154335\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=154335"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=154335"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=154335"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}