{"id":163604,"date":"2008-09-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-09-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-badu-anr-vs-pappu-ram-ors-on-22-september-2008"},"modified":"2016-02-24T15:41:10","modified_gmt":"2016-02-24T10:11:10","slug":"smt-badu-anr-vs-pappu-ram-ors-on-22-september-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-badu-anr-vs-pappu-ram-ors-on-22-september-2008","title":{"rendered":"Smt.Badu & Anr vs Pappu Ram & Ors on 22 September, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur<\/div>\n
Smt.Badu & Anr vs Pappu Ram & Ors on 22 September, 2008<\/div>\n
                                                      SBCMA No.1084\/2008\n                                 Smt. Smt. Gazra &Ors. Vs. Pappu Ram & Anr.\n                                                                       And\n                                                      SBCMA No.1357\/2008\n                                      Smt. Badu & Anr. Vs. Pappu Ram & Anr.\n                             1\n\n\n                SBCMA No.1084\/2008\n     Smt. Smt. Gazra &Ors. Vs. Pappu Ram & Anr.\n                        And\n                SBCMA No.1357\/2008\n       Smt. Badu & Anr. Vs. Pappu Ram & Anr\n\nDATE OF ORDER : - 22.9.2008\n\n           HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J.\n<\/pre>\n
Mr.LR Puniya for the appellants.\n<\/p>\n
Mr.Rajesh Panwar, for the respondents.\n<\/p>\n
     Heard learned counsel for the parties.<\/p>\n
     These two appeals have been filed to challenged the<\/p>\n
award dated 24.4.2007 by which the claim case no.42\/2005<\/p>\n
– Smt. Badu & Anr.Vs. Pappu Ram & Anr. and claims case<\/p>\n
no.57\/2005 – Smt. Gajara & Ors. Vs. Pappu Ram & Anr<\/p>\n
were dismissed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,<\/p>\n
Phalodi.\n<\/p>\n
     Brief facts of the case are that according to the<\/p>\n
claimants on 19th May, 2005 at 10.45 AM, the respondent<\/p>\n
Pappu Ram driver of the jeep of the respondent no.2 having<\/p>\n
jeep no.RJ-19-3507 caused accident resulting into death of<\/p>\n
one Birma Ram who died on spot and Rama Kishan who<\/p>\n
died after five days in hospital and also caused injuries to
\n                                                        SBCMA No.1084\/2008
\n                                  Smt. Smt. Gazra &Ors. Vs. Pappu Ram & Anr.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                        And
\n                                                       SBCMA No.1357\/2008
\n                                       Smt. Badu & Anr. Vs. Pappu Ram & Anr.\n<\/p>\n
                              2<\/span><\/p>\n
Smt. Gajara W\/o Rama Kishan. Rama Kishan was admitted<\/p>\n
in Government Hospital on the same day on 19th May, 2005<\/p>\n
and he remained hospitalized upto 21st June, 2005 and after<\/p>\n
his discharge from the hospital, he died five days thereafter.<\/p>\n
The FIR No.51\/2005 was also lodged on the same day i.e.,<\/p>\n
on 19th May, 2005, upon which investigation was started<\/p>\n
and challan was filed against the respondent no.1 Pappu<\/p>\n
Ram, driver of the vehicle in the court.<\/p>\n
     One claim petition under Section 163 A of the Motor<\/p>\n
Vehicles Act, 1988 was submitted by the claimants Smt.<\/p>\n
Babu & anr. (Claim Case No.42\/2005)                     alleging that<\/p>\n
deceased was of the age of 55 years and he was earning<\/p>\n
Rs.3300\/- per month. It was also alleged that claimants had<\/p>\n
to incur expenses for funeral of Rs.5,000\/-, have incurred<\/p>\n
expenses of Rs. 1, 000\/- for transportation, have incurred<\/p>\n
expenses for bringing the victim’s cloths and shoes of<\/p>\n
Rs.2,000\/- and the wife and children lost love and affection<\/p>\n
and, therefore, claim of Rs.30,000\/-. For Children another<\/p>\n
Rs.30,000\/- were claimed on account of loss of love and<\/p>\n
affection of the father, for mental agony Rs.3 lacs and
\n                                                        SBCMA No.1084\/2008
\n                                  Smt. Smt. Gazra &Ors. Vs. Pappu Ram & Anr.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                        And
\n                                                       SBCMA No.1357\/2008
\n                                       Smt. Badu & Anr. Vs. Pappu Ram & Anr.\n<\/p>\n
                              3<\/span><\/p>\n
intotal Rs.8,03,600\/- were claimed.<\/p>\n
     In claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles<\/p>\n
Act, 1988 No.57\/2005 filed by Smt. Gajara & Ors the<\/p>\n
claimants stated that deceased was of the age of 50 years<\/p>\n
and was earning Rs.6,000\/- per month and on various<\/p>\n
counts claimed total compensation of Rs.68,68,931\/-.<\/p>\n
     In the tribunal the claimants produced witnesses and<\/p>\n
voluminous documentary evidence in support of their claim<\/p>\n
whereas the respondents gave their statement. The learned<\/p>\n
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal         held that the claimants<\/p>\n
failed to prove that the death of two victims was due to<\/p>\n
injuries suffered by them in the accident. The tribunal was<\/p>\n
of the view that the deceased Rama Kishan himself was<\/p>\n
driving the vehicle which met accident and Pappu Ram was<\/p>\n
not the driver. The learned tribunal held the bodies were<\/p>\n
not postmortemed and, therefore, death of two person in<\/p>\n
the accident is not proved.\n<\/p>\n
     Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the<\/p>\n
voluminous documentary evidence has been discarded only<\/p>\n
on the basis of statement of one of the claimants witnesses
\n                                                          SBCMA No.1084\/2008
\n                                    Smt. Smt. Gazra &Ors. Vs. Pappu Ram & Anr.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                          And
\n                                                         SBCMA No.1357\/2008
\n                                         Smt. Badu & Anr. Vs. Pappu Ram & Anr.\n<\/p>\n
                                4<\/span><\/p>\n
Champa Lal whose statement cannot be relied upon and<\/p>\n
cannot be believed because of the reason that he himself in<\/p>\n
the investigation of the criminal case gave his statement<\/p>\n
that the driver of the vehicle was Pappu Ram. The owner of<\/p>\n
the vehicle was given notice. In response of which, he<\/p>\n
admitted that driver of the vehicle was Pappu Ram. It<\/p>\n
appears that to save the respondents, the witness Champa<\/p>\n
lal gave false statement and that too, contrary to the<\/p>\n
voluminous documentary evidence.                  The tribunal also<\/p>\n
observed that since postmortem was not conducted of the<\/p>\n
two bodies, therefore, their death due to the accident is not<\/p>\n
proved. It is submitted that ground cannot be sufficient for<\/p>\n
holding that the victim did not die in accident.<\/p>\n
     Learned    counsel   for   the      respondent          vehemently<\/p>\n
submitted that it is clear from the unequivocal trustworthy<\/p>\n
statement of Champa lal that Rama Kishan was driving the<\/p>\n
vehicle and he took the vehicle forcibly and that was not in<\/p>\n
the central of the owner of the vehicle and in that situation,<\/p>\n
the respondent no.2 – owner of the vehicle cannot be held<\/p>\n
liable for any damages. It is submitted that even if the two
\n                                                        SBCMA No.1084\/2008
\n                                  Smt. Smt. Gazra &Ors. Vs. Pappu Ram & Anr.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                        And
\n                                                       SBCMA No.1357\/2008
\n                                       Smt. Badu & Anr. Vs. Pappu Ram & Anr.\n<\/p>\n
                              5<\/span><\/p>\n
died in the accident even then Rama Kishan since he<\/p>\n
himself caused the accident, therefore, is not entitled to any<\/p>\n
claim whereas due to death of Virma Ram, the claimants<\/p>\n
could have claimed damages only from Rama Kishan for<\/p>\n
causing death of Virma Ram because of rash and negligent<\/p>\n
driving by the Rama Kishan and that too at the time when<\/p>\n
the vehicle was under the exclusive control of Rama Kishan<\/p>\n
and was not under the control of the respondent no.2<\/p>\n
Babulal – the owner of the vehicle then Rama Kishan had<\/p>\n
died and therefore, claimants for Virma Ram’s case cannot<\/p>\n
get any compensation.\n<\/p>\n
     I considered the submission of learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
parties. The finding of the tribunal about the fact of death of<\/p>\n
two victims in this accident is core question involved in<\/p>\n
these appeals. It may be relevant to mention here that in<\/p>\n
reply to the claim petition, the owner and driver of the<\/p>\n
vehicle both stated that the respondent-owner                     of the<\/p>\n
vehicle Babulal was not at his house and Rama Kishan took<\/p>\n
the vehicle of Babulal from the ladies of the house in<\/p>\n
absence of the respondent no.2 – the owner of the vehicle
\n                                                      SBCMA No.1084\/2008
\n                                Smt. Smt. Gazra &Ors. Vs. Pappu Ram & Anr.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                      And
\n                                                     SBCMA No.1357\/2008
\n                                     Smt. Badu & Anr. Vs. Pappu Ram & Anr.\n<\/p>\n
                            6<\/span><\/p>\n
and Rama Kishan caused the accident.            In view of the<\/p>\n
above reason, this fact cannot be disputed that accident<\/p>\n
was caused by the jeep of the respondent Babu Lal. The<\/p>\n
next question arises is that whether at that time Rama<\/p>\n
Kishan was driving the vehicle or Pappu Ram was driving<\/p>\n
the vehicle. For this, the FIR was submitted on the same<\/p>\n
day and copy of which has been placed on record by the<\/p>\n
claimants and in the FIR which was submitted forthwith<\/p>\n
there is mention that Pappu Ram was driving the vehicle. In<\/p>\n
police statement, even Champa Lal also gave statement<\/p>\n
that driver of the vehicle was Pappu Ram. After recording<\/p>\n
evidence, the independent investigating agency found that<\/p>\n
Pappu Ram was the driver of the vehicle in question which<\/p>\n
was seized by the Investigating agency and the challan was<\/p>\n
filed against Pappu Ram. Against all these documentary<\/p>\n
evidence, there is one statement of Champa Lal that Rama<\/p>\n
Kishan was driving the vehicle. He was confronted with his<\/p>\n
earlier statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. upon<\/p>\n
which he stated that he did not give said statement in the<\/p>\n
criminal case.   In view of the above, the credibility of
\n                                                          SBCMA No.1084\/2008
\n                                    Smt. Smt. Gazra &Ors. Vs. Pappu Ram & Anr.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                          And
\n                                                         SBCMA No.1357\/2008
\n                                         Smt. Badu & Anr. Vs. Pappu Ram & Anr.\n<\/p>\n
                                7<\/span><\/p>\n
Champa Lal is very doubtful. In addition to the above, the<\/p>\n
respondent no.2 owner of the vehicle himself informed the<\/p>\n
investigating agency in response to the notice issued to him<\/p>\n
that the vehicle was with the driver Pappu Ram. The Motor<\/p>\n
Accident Claims Tribunal should have carefully looked into<\/p>\n
this aspect of the matter and should not have given undue<\/p>\n
weightage to the statement of the witness contrary to the<\/p>\n
documentary evidence as well as all circumstantial evidence<\/p>\n
which supports the view that vehicle was driven by<\/p>\n
respondent Pappu Ram.\n<\/p>\n
     In view of the above finding of the tribunal that the<\/p>\n
deceased Rama Kishan forcibly took the vehicle is contrary<\/p>\n
to the stand taken by the respondents in their reply when<\/p>\n
they stated that Rama Kishan took the vehicle with the<\/p>\n
permission of the ladies of the house.               Pappu Ram was<\/p>\n
driving   the   vehicle   and   not      Rama        Kishan.       Certain<\/p>\n
inconsistency or contradiction in the statement of other<\/p>\n
witnesses cannot effect the credibility in the evidence<\/p>\n
produce by the appellants for proving the fact that the<\/p>\n
accident was caused by Pappu Ram by driving the vehicle of
\n                                                        SBCMA No.1084\/2008
\n                                  Smt. Smt. Gazra &Ors. Vs. Pappu Ram & Anr.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                        And
\n                                                       SBCMA No.1357\/2008
\n                                       Smt. Badu & Anr. Vs. Pappu Ram & Anr.\n<\/p>\n
                              8<\/span><\/p>\n
respondent no.2 and the two of the persons died in the<\/p>\n
accident.\n<\/p>\n
     Even if the postmortem was not conducted of the<\/p>\n
bodies of these two victims even then this fact is not in<\/p>\n
dispute that the victims Rama Kishan died just few days<\/p>\n
after the accident i.e., after five days after his discharge<\/p>\n
from the hospital only. As per the indoor ticket itself it is<\/p>\n
clear that victim was brought in the hospital in very serious<\/p>\n
condition with head injury and from complete record<\/p>\n
obtained from the Government hospital by the investigating<\/p>\n
agency in criminal case, copies of which have been placed<\/p>\n
on record by the claimants, clearly show that the victim<\/p>\n
Rama Kishan was given treatment in the hospital and he<\/p>\n
remained there upto 21st June, 2005. Therefore, it is clear<\/p>\n
that both the victims died in the accident.<\/p>\n
     So far as quantum is concerned, in claim case<\/p>\n
no.42\/2005, the claimants claimed compensation under<\/p>\n
Section 163A of the Act of 1988. According to the claimants<\/p>\n
the deceased Virma Ram was of the age of 55 years at the<\/p>\n
time of accident, but in fact, claimant Smt. Badu w\/o Virma
\n                                                       SBCMA No.1084\/2008
\n                                 Smt. Smt. Gazra &Ors. Vs. Pappu Ram & Anr.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                       And
\n                                                      SBCMA No.1357\/2008
\n                                      Smt. Badu & Anr. Vs. Pappu Ram & Anr.\n<\/p>\n
                             9<\/span><\/p>\n
Ram had shown her age as 55 years in the year 2005 itself.<\/p>\n
Therefore, it appears that the age of the deceased Virma<\/p>\n
Ram has been shown less by the claimants. In Ex.P\/177<\/p>\n
( Panchnama ) for the body of the deceased Virma Ram his<\/p>\n
age is shown as 55 years, but Virma Ram was elder to<\/p>\n
claimant Smt. Badu who was of the age of 55 years.<\/p>\n
Therefore, reasonable inference can be drawn that Virma<\/p>\n
Ram was of the age of 60 years at the time of accident.<\/p>\n
     In view of the above, the income of the deceased can<\/p>\n
be assessed to be Rs.3,000\/- per month in the light of<\/p>\n
evidence produce by the claimants then multiplier of 5 can<\/p>\n
be applied as per the second schedule for Section 163A.<\/p>\n
     In view of the above reasons, the monthly income of<\/p>\n
the deceased was Rs.3,000\/- per month i.e., Rs.36,000\/-<\/p>\n
per annum and by applying multiplier of 5 it comes to<\/p>\n
Rs.1,80,000\/- and as provided under second schedule itself<\/p>\n
1\/3rd out of this amount is required to be deducted, hence,<\/p>\n
deducted, the total amount comes to Rs.1,20,000\/-. The<\/p>\n
claimants are also   entitled to Rs.20,000\/- to              appellant<\/p>\n
no.1 Smt. Badu for loss of love of her husband Rs.20,000\/-.\n<\/p>\n
                                                        SBCMA No.1084\/2008
\n                                  Smt. Smt. Gazra &Ors. Vs. Pappu Ram & Anr.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                        And
\n                                                       SBCMA No.1357\/2008
\n                                       Smt. Badu & Anr. Vs. Pappu Ram & Anr.\n<\/p>\n
                             10<\/span><\/p>\n
     In view of the above the appeal of the appellant Smt.<\/p>\n
Badu (S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.1357\/2008) is allowed. The<\/p>\n
appellants      are   held    entitled           to        claim         of<\/p>\n
Rs.1,20,000+20,000+15,000,         Total     Rs.1,55,000\/-           with<\/p>\n
interest from the date of filing of the claim petition before<\/p>\n
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal @ 6 \u00bd % per annum.<\/p>\n
     In claim case no.57\/2005 filed under Section 166 of<\/p>\n
the Motor Vehicle Act claimant Smt. Gajara has shown her<\/p>\n
age as 50 years in the claim petition whereas in her<\/p>\n
statement in the court,she admitted her own age as 70<\/p>\n
years.   She also admitted that her husband Rama Kishan<\/p>\n
was sick and had urine trouble also. She tried to show her<\/p>\n
husband’s age less than 70 years but that cannot be<\/p>\n
accepted. The age of the deceased Rama Kishan cannot be<\/p>\n
less than 75 years as his age cannot be less than the age of<\/p>\n
his own wife.\n<\/p>\n
     In view of the above, the deceased’s Rama Kishan age<\/p>\n
is accepted as 75 years and he was an old person with<\/p>\n
some ailment and his notional income is accepted as<\/p>\n
Rs.3,000\/- per month. Therefore, claimants are entitled
\n                                                        SBCMA No.1084\/2008
\n                                  Smt. Smt. Gazra &Ors. Vs. Pappu Ram & Anr.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                        And
\n                                                       SBCMA No.1357\/2008
\n                                       Smt. Badu & Anr. Vs. Pappu Ram & Anr.\n<\/p>\n
                             11<\/span><\/p>\n
compensation of Rs.3,000X12X5 deducted by 1\/3rd of the<\/p>\n
amount looking to the possibility of no future increase in the<\/p>\n
income of the deceased Rama Kishan it is held that the<\/p>\n
claimants are entitled to Rs.1,20,000\/- on this count.                   It<\/p>\n
claimants are also entitled to; Rs.15,000\/- to appellant<\/p>\n
Smt. Gajara for her loss of love of her husband and<\/p>\n
Rs.10,000\/- to each of appellants nos. 2 to 4 on account of<\/p>\n
loss of love of their father.          The claimants suffered<\/p>\n
expenditure of Rs.34,000\/- for treatment of the deceased.<\/p>\n
Appellants are not entitled to any other claims. The total<\/p>\n
amount comes to Rs.1,20,000+15,000(to appellant no.1)<\/p>\n
+30,000 (to appellants nos. 2 to 4) + 34,000, total<\/p>\n
Rs.1,99,000\/- looking to age of appellant no.1 and other<\/p>\n
appellants all will get equal amount out of Rs.1,20,000\/-<\/p>\n
and 1,34,000\/-. The appellants shall be entitled to interest<\/p>\n
@ 6.5% per annum from the date of claim petition.<\/p>\n
     Smt. Gajara in her statement stated that she suffered<\/p>\n
seven fractures and produced the discharge ticket Ex.167<\/p>\n
and bills of medicines Ex.168 to 176 by which she paid total<\/p>\n
Rs.4031\/- for medicines but to prove fractures, she did not
\n                                                              SBCMA No.1084\/2008
\n                                        Smt. Smt. Gazra &Ors. Vs. Pappu Ram & Anr.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                              And
\n                                                             SBCMA No.1357\/2008
\n                                             Smt. Badu & Anr. Vs. Pappu Ram & Anr.\n<\/p>\n
                                   12<\/span><\/p>\n
produce any medical evidence. Since the appellant Smt.<\/p>\n
Gajara has proved her paying medical bills of Rs.4031\/-,<\/p>\n
therefore, it is held that she is entitled to Rs.4031\/- on this<\/p>\n
count   and    she    is   also     held        entitled      for     notional<\/p>\n
compensation of Rs.5,000\/-. Therefore, it is held that<\/p>\n
claimant appellant Smt. Gajara is entitled to compensation<\/p>\n
of Rs.9031\/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date<\/p>\n
of filing of the claim petition.\n<\/p>\n
     Consequently, both the appeals of the appellants are<\/p>\n
allowed to the extent mentioned above.<\/p>\n
                                               (PRAKASH TATIA), J.\n<\/p>\n
c.p.goyal\/-<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur Smt.Badu & Anr vs Pappu Ram & Ors on 22 September, 2008 SBCMA No.1084\/2008 Smt. Smt. Gazra &Ors. Vs. Pappu Ram & Anr. And SBCMA No.1357\/2008 Smt. Badu & Anr. Vs. Pappu Ram & Anr. 1 SBCMA No.1084\/2008 Smt. Smt. Gazra &Ors. Vs. Pappu Ram & Anr. And SBCMA No.1357\/2008 […]<\/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":[8,19],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-163604","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-rajasthan-high-court-jodhpur"],"yoast_head":"\nSmt.Badu & Anr vs Pappu Ram & Ors on 22 September, 2008 - 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-badu-anr-vs-pappu-ram-ors-on-22-september-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Smt.Badu & Anr vs Pappu Ram & Ors on 22 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-badu-anr-vs-pappu-ram-ors-on-22-september-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-09-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-02-24T10:11:10+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=\"12 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-badu-anr-vs-pappu-ram-ors-on-22-september-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-badu-anr-vs-pappu-ram-ors-on-22-september-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Smt.Badu & Anr vs Pappu Ram & Ors on 22 September, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-24T10:11:10+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-badu-anr-vs-pappu-ram-ors-on-22-september-2008\"},\"wordCount\":2428,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-badu-anr-vs-pappu-ram-ors-on-22-september-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-badu-anr-vs-pappu-ram-ors-on-22-september-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-badu-anr-vs-pappu-ram-ors-on-22-september-2008\",\"name\":\"Smt.Badu & Anr vs Pappu Ram & Ors on 22 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-24T10:11:10+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-badu-anr-vs-pappu-ram-ors-on-22-september-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-badu-anr-vs-pappu-ram-ors-on-22-september-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-badu-anr-vs-pappu-ram-ors-on-22-september-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Smt.Badu & Anr vs Pappu Ram & Ors on 22 September, 2008\"}]},{\"@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.Badu & Anr vs Pappu Ram & Ors on 22 September, 2008 - 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-badu-anr-vs-pappu-ram-ors-on-22-september-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Smt.Badu & Anr vs Pappu Ram & Ors on 22 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-badu-anr-vs-pappu-ram-ors-on-22-september-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-09-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-02-24T10:11:10+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-badu-anr-vs-pappu-ram-ors-on-22-september-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-badu-anr-vs-pappu-ram-ors-on-22-september-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Smt.Badu & Anr vs Pappu Ram & Ors on 22 September, 2008","datePublished":"2008-09-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-24T10:11:10+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-badu-anr-vs-pappu-ram-ors-on-22-september-2008"},"wordCount":2428,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-badu-anr-vs-pappu-ram-ors-on-22-september-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-badu-anr-vs-pappu-ram-ors-on-22-september-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-badu-anr-vs-pappu-ram-ors-on-22-september-2008","name":"Smt.Badu & Anr vs Pappu Ram & Ors on 22 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-09-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-24T10:11:10+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-badu-anr-vs-pappu-ram-ors-on-22-september-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-badu-anr-vs-pappu-ram-ors-on-22-september-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-badu-anr-vs-pappu-ram-ors-on-22-september-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Smt.Badu & Anr vs Pappu Ram & Ors on 22 September, 2008"}]},{"@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\/163604","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=163604"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/163604\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=163604"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=163604"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=163604"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}