{"id":162210,"date":"2009-04-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-04-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-bhushan-kumar-vs-dtc-and-ors-on-13-april-2009"},"modified":"2018-12-24T08:22:30","modified_gmt":"2018-12-24T02:52:30","slug":"shri-bhushan-kumar-vs-dtc-and-ors-on-13-april-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-bhushan-kumar-vs-dtc-and-ors-on-13-april-2009","title":{"rendered":"Shri Bhushan Kumar vs Dtc And Ors. on 13 April, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court<\/div>\n
Shri Bhushan Kumar vs Dtc And Ors. on 13 April, 2009<\/div>\n
Author: Kailash Gambhir<\/div>\n
*           IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI\n\n+                         FAO No. 37\/2003\n\n                          Judgment reserved on: 11.02.2008\n%                         Judgment delivered on: 13.4.2009\n\n\n\nSHRI BHUSHAN KUMAR                    ...... Appellant\n                Through: Mr. O. P. Mannie, Advocate.\n\n                     versus\n\nDTC AND ORS.                                  .... Respondents\n                          Through: Mr. Kanwal Chaudhary,\n                                   Advocate.\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\n      in the Digest?                                    No\n\n\nKAILASH GAMBHIR, J.\n<\/pre>\n
1.    The present appeal arises out of the award dated 3 rd<\/p>\n
September 2002 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whereby<\/p>\n
the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 33,500\/- with a simple interest<\/p>\n
@ 12% pa.\n<\/p>\n
     FAO No. 37\/03                                       Page 1 of 10<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
 2.    The brief conspectus of the facts is as follows:<\/p>\n
On 8th June 1985, at around 1:45 P.M., the injured appellant Mr.<\/p>\n
Bhushan Kumar, aged about 35 years was travelling on the road<\/p>\n
leading to the Ring Road from Vinay Marg on a two wheeler<\/p>\n
scooter as a pillion rider when suddenly a DTC bus bearing<\/p>\n
Registration No. DEP 3888 being driven on the wrong side of the<\/p>\n
road hit the scooter resulting into causing serious injuries to the<\/p>\n
appellant who was on the pillion seat. He received injuries in his<\/p>\n
chest, left hand and arm, face and other body parts including his<\/p>\n
left leg which was completely fractured. The injured was removed<\/p>\n
to the Safdarjang Hospital.\n<\/p>\n
3.    A claim petition was filed on 7th December 1985 and an<\/p>\n
award was passed on 3rd September 2002. Aggrieved with the<\/p>\n
said award the appellant claimed enhancement by way of the<\/p>\n
present appeal.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
4.    Sh. O.P. Mannie counsel for the appellant urged that the<\/p>\n
award passed by the learned Tribunal is inadequate and<\/p>\n
insufficient looking at the circumstances of the case. He assailed<\/p>\n
the said judgment of Learned Tribunal firstly, on the ground that<\/p>\n
     FAO No. 37\/03                                       Page 2 of 10<\/span>
\n the tribunal erred in assessing the income of the claimant<\/p>\n
appellant at Rs. 750\/- PM without considering his earnings from<\/p>\n
Burma Trunk House where from he was drawing a salary of Rs.<\/p>\n
20\/-per day. Based on this, it is further contended that the loss of<\/p>\n
income should also be enhanced, accordingly. The Counsel also<\/p>\n
expressed his discontent on the amount of compensation granted<\/p>\n
towards medical expenses. He claimed an amount of Rs. 25,000\/-<\/p>\n
towards the medical treatment and expenses. Enhancement is<\/p>\n
also claimed on the ground that a meager amount of just Rs.<\/p>\n
1,500\/- has been awarded towards conveyance instead of the<\/p>\n
claim of Rs. 12,000\/- . Amount towards the special diet is also<\/p>\n
sought to be enhanced from Rs. 4,000\/- to 35,000\/-. The Tribunal<\/p>\n
awarded a sum of Rs. 15,000\/- towards mental pain & suffering<\/p>\n
but the counsel showed his discontent to that as well and averred<\/p>\n
that it should have been Rs. 50,000\/-. Further the counsel<\/p>\n
pleaded that the counsel erred in awarding an interest of @9% pa<\/p>\n
instead of 12% pa.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
5.    Mr. Kanwal Chaudhry counsel for the respondent\/insurance<\/p>\n
company refuted the contentions of counsel for the appellant and<\/p>\n
stated that the impugned award is just and fair and requires no<\/p>\n
     FAO No. 37\/03                                        Page 3 of 10<\/span>
\n interference as far as enhancement is concerned. He urged that<\/p>\n
the tribunal awarded compensation without there being any<\/p>\n
documentary or cogent evidence on record under the heads of<\/p>\n
conveyance expenses, medical expenses etc.<\/p>\n
6.     I have heard counsel for the appellant and perused the<\/p>\n
award.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
7.     In a plethora of cases the Hon’ble Apex Court and various<\/p>\n
High Courts have held that the emphasis of the courts in personal<\/p>\n
injury   and    fatal    accidents    cases     should   be   on   awarding<\/p>\n
substantial, just and fair damages and not mere token amount. In<\/p>\n
cases of personal injuries the general principle is that such sum<\/p>\n
of compensation should be awarded which puts the injured in the<\/p>\n
same position as he would have been, had the accident not taken<\/p>\n
place. In examining the question of damages for personal injury,<\/p>\n
it is axiomatic that pecuniary and non-pecuniary heads of<\/p>\n
damages are required to be taken in to account. In this regard<\/p>\n
the   Supreme         Court   in   Divisional    Controller,   KSRTC        v.<\/p>\n
Mahadeva Shetty,<\/a> (2003) 7 SCC 197, has classified pecuniary<\/p>\n
and non-pecuniary damages as under:\n<\/p>\n
      FAO No. 37\/03                                                Page 4 of 10<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
             “16. This Court in R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest
\n      Control (India) (P) Ltd.<\/a> 9 laying the principles
\n      posited: (SCC p. 556, para 9)<\/p>\n
             ” 9 . Broadly speaking while fixing an amount
\n      of compensation payable to a victim of an accident,
\n      the damages have to be assessed separately as
\n      pecuniary damages and special damages. Pecuniary
\n      damages are those which the victim has actually
\n      incurred and which are capable of being calculated in
\n      terms of money; whereas non-pecuniary damages
\n      are those which are incapable of being assessed by
\n      arithmetical calculations. In order to appreciate two
\n      concepts pecuniary damages may include expenses
\n      incurred by the claimant:(i) medical attendance; ( ii
\n      ) loss of earning of profit up to the date of trial; ( iii )
\n      other material loss. So far as non-pecuniary
\n      damages are concerned, they may include ( i )
\n      damages for mental and physical shock, pain and
\n      suffering, already suffered or likely to be suffered in
\n      future; ( ii ) damages to compensate for the loss of
\n      amenities of life which may include a variety of
\n      matters i.e. on account of injury the claimant may
\n      not be able to walk, run or sit; ( iii ) damages for the
\n      loss of expectation of life i.e. on account of injury the
\n      normal longevity of the person concerned is
\n      shortened;       ( iv   )    inconvenience,     hardship,
\n      discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental
\n      stress in life.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
8.    In the instant case the tribunal awarded Rs.                   5000\/- for<\/p>\n
expenses towards medicines; Rs.             4000\/- for special diet; Rs.<\/p>\n
1500\/- for conveyance expenses; Rs. 15,000 for mental pain and<\/p>\n
sufferings and Rs. 3000\/- on account of loss of earnings.<\/p>\n
9.    On perusal of the award, it is manifest that the appellant is<\/p>\n
the government employee and he took most of the treatment<\/p>\n
from a government hospital where he was not charged and the<\/p>\n
     FAO No. 37\/03                                                    Page 5 of 10<\/span>
\n appellant was reimbursed the amount he spent under treatment<\/p>\n
in the said hospital. The appellant placed on record various bills<\/p>\n
and medical vouchers of private doctors and hospitals as<\/p>\n
Ex.PW3\/21 to 29. As regards medical expenses, the tribunal took<\/p>\n
cognizance of the fact that the appellant sustained injuries on<\/p>\n
various parts of the body and awarded Rs. 5000\/- even though<\/p>\n
the appellant could not prove that he incurred Rs. 5000\/- towards<\/p>\n
medical expenses. I do not find any infirmity in the order in this<\/p>\n
regard and the same is not interfered with.\n<\/p>\n
10.    As regards conveyance expenses, nothing has been proved<\/p>\n
on record. The appellant suffered injuries on various parts of his<\/p>\n
body and in his statement he made the averment that he had<\/p>\n
spent rupees 12,000 on conveyance of three Wheeler Scooter as<\/p>\n
he had to visit the hospital at least 15 times for his treatment.<\/p>\n
The tribunal after taking note of this fact and in the absence of<\/p>\n
any    cogent evidence awarded Rs.       1500\/-   for conveyance<\/p>\n
expenses. I do not find any infirmity in the order in this regard<\/p>\n
and the same is not interfered with.\n<\/p>\n
11.    As regards special diet expenses, although nothing was<\/p>\n
brought on record by the appellant to prove the expenses<\/p>\n
incurred by him towards special diet but still the tribunal took<\/p>\n
      FAO No. 37\/03                                     Page 6 of 10<\/span>
\n note of the fact that since the appellant sustained fracture thus<\/p>\n
he must have also consumed protein-rich\/special diet for his early<\/p>\n
recovery and awarded Rs. 4000\/- for special diet expenses. I do<\/p>\n
not find any infirmity in the order in this regard and the same is<\/p>\n
not interfered with.\n<\/p>\n
12.    As regards mental pain & suffering, the tribunal awarded<\/p>\n
Rs. 15,000\/- to the appellant. The appellant sustained major and<\/p>\n
serious injuries in his chest, left hand and the arm, face and other<\/p>\n
parts of the body and the bone of his left leg were completely<\/p>\n
fractured below the knee. On perusal of the award it is manifest<\/p>\n
that on the date of filing of the petition, the leg of the appellant<\/p>\n
was in plaster and he could not walk without the help of crutches.<\/p>\n
The appellant was examined as PW3 and he deposed that that he<\/p>\n
finds it difficult to board the bus. In such circumstance, I feel that<\/p>\n
the compensation towards mental pain & sufferings should be<\/p>\n
enhanced to Rs. 25,000\/-.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
13.    As regards loss of amenities, Compensation for loss of<\/p>\n
amenities of life compensates victim for the limitation, resulting<\/p>\n
from the defendant’s negligence, on the injured person’s ability<\/p>\n
to participate in and derive pleasure from the normal activities of<\/p>\n
daily life, or the individual’s inability to pursue his talents,<\/p>\n
      FAO No. 37\/03                                         Page 7 of 10<\/span>
\n recreational    interests,   hobbies   or   avocations.   In   essence,<\/p>\n
compensation for loss of expectation of life compensates an<\/p>\n
individual for loss of life and loss of the pleasures of living. I feel<\/p>\n
that the tribunal erred in not awarding the same and in the<\/p>\n
circumstances of the case same are awarded at Rs.10,000\/-.<\/p>\n
14.    As regards loss of earnings, proof regarding income of the<\/p>\n
appellant was brought on record as exhibit PW 3\/50.                   The<\/p>\n
appellant was employed with Indian Air Force at the monthly<\/p>\n
salary of rupees 750 per month. The appellant also deposed that<\/p>\n
besides the said work he was earning Rs 20 per day at Burma<\/p>\n
Trunk House. It is no more res integra that mere bald assertions<\/p>\n
regarding the income of the injured are of no help to the<\/p>\n
claimants in the absence of any reliable evidence being brought<\/p>\n
on record. Since the appellant could not prove his income of<\/p>\n
rupees 20 per day at Burma trunk house, thus the tribunal only<\/p>\n
considered his income as an employee of Indian air force. It has<\/p>\n
been duly proved on record that the Appellant remained on leave<\/p>\n
for a period of about 196 days.             Exhibit PW 3\/51 to 52 a<\/p>\n
certificate to the effect of loss of wages and according to the said<\/p>\n
certificate the tribunal worked out the compensation towards loss<\/p>\n
of earnings as Rs 7650 which was rounded off to Rs 8000. I do<\/p>\n
      FAO No. 37\/03                                            Page 8 of 10<\/span>
\n not find any infirmity in the same & therefore, it is not interfered<\/p>\n
with.\n<\/p>\n
15.     As regards the issue of interest that the rate of interest of<\/p>\n
9% p.a. awarded by the tribunal is on the lower side and the<\/p>\n
same should be enhanced to 12% p.a., I feel that the rate of<\/p>\n
interest awarded by the tribunal is just and fair and requires no<\/p>\n
interference. No rate of interest is fixed under Section 171 of the<\/p>\n
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Interest is compensation for<\/p>\n
forbearance or detention of money and that interest is awarded<\/p>\n
to a party only for being kept out of the money, which ought to<\/p>\n
have been paid to him. Time and again the Hon’ble Supreme<\/p>\n
Court has held that the rate of interest to be awarded should be<\/p>\n
just and fair depending upon the facts and circumstances of the<\/p>\n
case and taking in to consideration relevant factors including<\/p>\n
inflation, policy being adopted by Reserve Bank of India from<\/p>\n
time to time and other economic factors. In the facts and<\/p>\n
circumstances of the case, I do not find any infirmity in the award<\/p>\n
regarding award of interest @ 9% pa by the tribunal and the<\/p>\n
same is not\/ interfered with.\n<\/p>\n
16.     Therefore,    Rs.   5,000\/-   is   awarded   towards    medical<\/p>\n
expenses; Rs.1,500\/- for conveyance expenses; Rs.4,000\/- for<\/p>\n
      FAO No. 37\/03                                            Page 9 of 10<\/span>
\n special diet; Rs.25,000\/- for mental pain & sufferings; Rs.10,000\/-<\/p>\n
for loss of amenities & Rs.8,000\/- towards loss of earnings.<\/p>\n
17.     In view of the above discussion, the total compensation is<\/p>\n
enhanced to Rs. 53,500\/- from Rs. 33,500\/- along with interest<\/p>\n
@ 7.5% per annum from the date of institution of the petition till<\/p>\n
realisation of the award and the same should be paid to the<\/p>\n
appellant by the respondent\/insurance company.<\/p>\n
18.     With the above direction, the present appeal is disposed of.<\/p>\n
13.4.2009                                KAILASH GAMBHIR, J\n\n\n\n\n      FAO No. 37\/03                                       Page 10 of 10<\/span>\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court Shri Bhushan Kumar vs Dtc And Ors. on 13 April, 2009 Author: Kailash Gambhir * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO No. 37\/2003 Judgment reserved on: 11.02.2008 % Judgment delivered on: 13.4.2009 SHRI BHUSHAN KUMAR …… Appellant Through: Mr. O. P. Mannie, Advocate. versus DTC AND ORS. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-162210","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nShri Bhushan Kumar vs Dtc And Ors. on 13 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-bhushan-kumar-vs-dtc-and-ors-on-13-april-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Shri Bhushan Kumar vs Dtc And Ors. on 13 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-bhushan-kumar-vs-dtc-and-ors-on-13-april-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-04-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-12-24T02:52:30+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-bhushan-kumar-vs-dtc-and-ors-on-13-april-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-bhushan-kumar-vs-dtc-and-ors-on-13-april-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Shri Bhushan Kumar vs Dtc And Ors. on 13 April, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-04-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-24T02:52:30+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-bhushan-kumar-vs-dtc-and-ors-on-13-april-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1896,\"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\\\/shri-bhushan-kumar-vs-dtc-and-ors-on-13-april-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-bhushan-kumar-vs-dtc-and-ors-on-13-april-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-bhushan-kumar-vs-dtc-and-ors-on-13-april-2009\",\"name\":\"Shri Bhushan Kumar vs Dtc And Ors. on 13 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-04-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-24T02:52:30+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-bhushan-kumar-vs-dtc-and-ors-on-13-april-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-bhushan-kumar-vs-dtc-and-ors-on-13-april-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-bhushan-kumar-vs-dtc-and-ors-on-13-april-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Shri Bhushan Kumar vs Dtc And Ors. on 13 April, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Shri Bhushan Kumar vs Dtc And Ors. on 13 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-bhushan-kumar-vs-dtc-and-ors-on-13-april-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Shri Bhushan Kumar vs Dtc And Ors. on 13 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-bhushan-kumar-vs-dtc-and-ors-on-13-april-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-04-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-12-24T02:52:30+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-bhushan-kumar-vs-dtc-and-ors-on-13-april-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-bhushan-kumar-vs-dtc-and-ors-on-13-april-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Shri Bhushan Kumar vs Dtc And Ors. on 13 April, 2009","datePublished":"2009-04-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-24T02:52:30+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-bhushan-kumar-vs-dtc-and-ors-on-13-april-2009"},"wordCount":1896,"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\/shri-bhushan-kumar-vs-dtc-and-ors-on-13-april-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-bhushan-kumar-vs-dtc-and-ors-on-13-april-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-bhushan-kumar-vs-dtc-and-ors-on-13-april-2009","name":"Shri Bhushan Kumar vs Dtc And Ors. on 13 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-04-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-24T02:52:30+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-bhushan-kumar-vs-dtc-and-ors-on-13-april-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-bhushan-kumar-vs-dtc-and-ors-on-13-april-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-bhushan-kumar-vs-dtc-and-ors-on-13-april-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Shri Bhushan Kumar vs Dtc And Ors. on 13 April, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/162210","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=162210"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/162210\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=162210"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=162210"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=162210"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}