{"id":170780,"date":"1980-08-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1980-08-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-smt-davi-rawat-and-ors-on-12-august-1980"},"modified":"2016-09-25T09:17:25","modified_gmt":"2016-09-25T03:47:25","slug":"the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-smt-davi-rawat-and-ors-on-12-august-1980","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-smt-davi-rawat-and-ors-on-12-august-1980","title":{"rendered":"The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Smt. Davi Rawat And Ors. on 12 August, 1980"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madhya Pradesh High Court<\/div>\n
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Smt. Davi Rawat And Ors. on 12 August, 1980<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: AIR 1981 MP 173<\/div>\n
Author: G Singh<\/div>\n
Bench: G Singh, U Bhachawat<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
 G.P. Singh, C.J. <\/p>\n
 1. This is an appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, against an award, dated 31st March, 1977, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sidhi.\n<\/p>\n
 2.    The    deceased    A.S. Rawat,    who was   a   Divisional   Forest  Officer  in     the State      Forest     Service,     died    in      a Motor accident on 18th April,  1975.   The deceased  was  then  posted  at Satna.    He was going from Satna to Bargawa in    a Government   jeep   in   the   normal   course of his  employment.     The  jeep was  driven    by    Mohammad    Ali     (respondent No.  5) who is employed    as    a    Forest Guard but was authorised to drive the ieep as a part of his    duty.    The    jeep overturned  near  village  Gopalpur.     The deceased  received multiple injuries     on his  head  and  other parts of his body as a result of which he died while on way to the  hospital.    The  claim  for  compensation   against   the  State  and  the  driver Mohammad Ali was lodged by the widow of the deceased and three minor daughters.    By    the    award    under      appeal, the  Tribunal  has  allowed Rs.  82,000\/- as damages to the claimants.    Interests    at the rate of 6%   has  also    been    allowed from the date of the award till payment. The State has come up in appeal against this   award.    The  claimants  have     filed a cross-objection    for    enhancement    of the   award.\n<\/p>\n
 3.    The first  question that     arises    in this   appeal  is  whether  the  driver    was negligent  in driving    the    vehicle  as    a result of which it overturned.    The driver  was  examined  as    N. A. W.  3.    Another witness who was examined on the same point is S.C. Shrivastava  (N. A. W. 2) The   evidence   of   these  witnesses,   specially    that    of    the       driver,       discloses that  the vehicle  at the time of accident was  negotiating  a hill.    It  was  running at   a  speed  of  30  to 40  Kms.   per  hour. On  the left side of the    road    was    the sleep hill  and on  the right side a deep ravine.     A  herd  of goats  which was  on one of the sides of the road,    suddenly came   towards  the  middle  of  the    road. The  driver  tried  to  save  the  goats   and applied   the   brakes   which   resulted   in the overturning of    the    vehicle.      The driver of a motor vehicle has to be very cautious  while  negotiating  a hill.    More caution is needed when animals are seen on the sides of the road because it is common experience that their behaviour   on the approach of a motor vehicle is    uncertain.    The speed of a motor vehicle<\/p>\n
to be termed reasonable, must be adjusted to the circumstances of the case. Having regard to the facts stated above, it cannot be said that the speed of 30 to 40 Kms. at which the jeep was being driven at the relevant time, was a reasonable speed. It is not the case of the driver that the goats were not visible from a distance. A reasonable driver would have foreseen the possibility of the goats straying on the road on the apporach of the vehicle and would have considerably reduced the speed. In our opinion, the driver was clearly negligent in not slowing down the vehicle which would have avoided sudden application of brakes and the overturning of the vehicle.\n<\/p>\n
 4.    It was submitted before us    that the vehicle was not in a fit condition and that it was because of its bad condition that the accident happended and not because   of   any  negligence   of   the   driver. It was  argued  that the  deceased  was  in know      of      the         fact         that         the vehicle  was    not in    a fit condition  and still he  took the hazard of travelling in it and, therefore, the State is not liable. In   our   opinion,   there  is   absolutely  no merit  in  this argument.       It is true,  as appears from the evidence of the driver, that  the  vehicle  had  earlier  also     been involved in some accidents,    but it does not   follow  from   this  evidence  that   the vehicle  was  not     roadworthy    and     not fit for  use.    The vehicle was  examined next day after the accident by a mechanic    of    the   police      department.    The report of this     inspection is    Ex.    D-3 which goes to show that the vehicle was perfectly in order.    This inspection report   completely   demolishes    the     argument that the deceased used the vehicle even though it was not in a fit    condition.\n<\/p>\n
 5.    As the accident happened as a result of the negligence of the driver, the Government  is    vicariously     responsible for  damages.    The  principles relating to the assessment of damages    were discussed   by  this  Court     in  Kamla     Devi  v. Kishanchand   AIR   1970  Madh   Pra     168 and  Chaurasia  and    Co.     Chhatarpur v. Pramila Rao AIR  1975    Madh    Pra    31. These decisions  have  taken  note  of important   English   and   Indian      authorities reported till then on the subject including the recent decisions of the House of Lords in Mallet    v.    McMonagle  1970 AC  166 and Taylor v. O’Connor 1971 A. C.    115.\n<\/p>\n
The following passage from the judgment in Pramila Rao’s case sums up the position (at p. 35 of AIR) :\n<\/p>\n
  “The principles on which damages are
\nassessed in a case of fatal accident have been discussed by a Division Bench    of this  Court  in   Kamla  Devi    v.     Kishanchand AIR   1970  Madh Pra  1G8.       After referring  to  the     relevant    Indian     and English  authorities  it was    pointed     out thai  the  assessment of damages in ordinary   cases   resolves   into   estimating   the proper  annual  dependency,    the    multiplicand   and   selecting   the     number     of years’   purchase,     the     multiplier.     This method  of  arriving  at  the    amount     of damages  has  again  been     approved     by the House of Lords in Taylor    v. O’Connot   1971   A. C.   115.    The  object    is    to estimate what amount should be awarded so that its income supplemented    by drawings    on    capital     may    yield    the amount of annual dependency during the remaining   period   of   dependency   or   the estimated   remainder  of  the  working life of  the     deceased     whichever     may     be shorter.     The  multiplier  selected  is  not equal to the number of years of    dependency    or    to    the    remainder   of    the working life of the deceased; it is much less,   for   it   takes  into   account   that  instead  of  yearly  payments  a  lumpsum is being   awarded   and    that     contingencies may  arise  in  future  to  cut    short    the period  of    dependency.    Growing    inflation has led to the caution of emphasising  that  the sum  to  be  awarded  should be  assumed  to be    invested  in    ‘growth’ stocks   carrying   a  low  rate   of  dividend; (Taylor v.  O’Connor  1971  AC  115).  This, in effect, is the same thing as saying that valuation should be  made of an  annuity on the basis of low interest rates such as 4 to  5%   which assume that    the money values  are  steady  but  involve  a    higher number  of  years’  purchase:   (See  Munkman,  Damages for Personal Injuries and Death,   5th  Edition.  P.   157).   Notice    has also to be taken of the pecuniary benefits  which  become    available  to  the  dependants as a result of the death of   the deceased   and     which    would  not     have been  available to them had the deceased lived.   In England,  under the Fatal Accidents   Act,   1959,   “any   insurance  money benefit,   pension   or   gratuity    which   has been or will or may be paid in    respect of the death”    has to be    disregarded in computing     damages.    There  is  no  such corresponding  law  in   India  and,    therefore, these benefits must be brought into<\/p>\n
account in the award of damages as was previously done in England: (See for example a case of pension, O’Neill v. S. J. Smith & Co. (Bidford Ltd). (1957) 3 All ER 255) ).”\n<\/p>\n
 6.    The mehtod  of assessing    damages by finding out the amount of annual dependency, i.  e.  the multiplicand,  and the number    of    years’     purchase,  i.   e.    the multiplier,  has    been    approved   by  the Supreme Court in M. P. S.  R. T.  Corporation v.  Sudhakar,  AIR  1977  SC    1189   where the  decision of the    House of    Lords in Mallett  v.     McMonagle     (1970 AC    1G6) (supra)  has been    referred   to.    Another method  for    assessing damages    was  applied  by the Supreme Court in    Manju-shri     v.      B.  L.       Gupta,       AIR       1977 SC       1158       by      calculating      the    actual    income    lost    to   the     family    including  the value of the estate after deducting  the  day  to  day  family expenses and  payment of    income-tax  and     other charges.  We, however,  prefer to    follow the method    applied    by    the    Supreme Court in  Sudhakar’s  case.   (AIR  1977  SC 1189).  The      multiplicand-multiplier   method  was   again  approved  by  the  House of  Lords  in  Cookson  v.  Knowles,   (1978) 2 All ER 604. The object in    assessment of damages is to find out the capital sum required to   purchase  an annuity of    an amount equal to the annual value of the benefits   with   which   the     deceased   had provided  the  dependants  while  he  lived and  for such period as it could    reasonably  be estimated they would have continued to enjoy    them but for    his premature death.  Such a capital sum is expressed as the product of multiplying an annual  sum    which    represents    the  dependency by a    number of    years’   purchase. This latter figure is less than the number  of  years  which  represents     the period for which it is estimated that the dependants would have continued to enjoy  the  benefit  of  the  dependency,  since the  capital sum    will not be    exhausted until the end of that period and    in the meantime so    much    of it as is not    yet exhausted  in  each year will  earn  interest  from which the dependency for that year could in part be met.     (Cookson v. Knowles P.  608)  (supra). The    House of Lords in Cookson v. Knowles have made one    modification.    The    modification   is that the    damages    should be    split into two parts:   (a) the    pecuniary loss    estimated to be sustained by the dependants from the date of death until the date of trial:   and   (b)  the  pecuniary  loss  which the dependants would sustain from   the<\/p>\n
trial onwards. This course has been suggested having regard to the practice of frequent wage increase due to inflation. In other words, the annual dependency at the trial should be fixed having regard to the increase in wages up to that date and damages up to that date should be calculated. The annual dependency so determined has further to be used for calculating post-trial damages without taking into account the change in dependency due to inflation on the reasoning that the valuation of the annuity is made on the basis of low interest rates such as 4 to 5% and this involves a higher number of years’ purchase. The capital sum so worked out is much more than what it would be at the current rate of interest and his counter-balances for future inflation.\n<\/p>\n
 7. The facts relevant for assessing damages in the instant case are that the deceased was aged 35 years at the time of his death. He was drawing a salary of Rs. 989\/- p. m. with allowances at that time. The scale of pay of the deceased was Rs. 680-1150. The deceased on the date of his death had been in the State Forest Service for 3 1\/2 years. After completion of eight years’ service he would have qualified himself for selection to the Indian Forest Service. The deceased would have continued to be in service till the age of 58 years and would have earned pension thereafter. He may have lived up to the age of 65 years. The dependants left bv the deceased are his widow aged 30 years and three minor daughters aged 6, 3 and 1 1\/2 years. The remainder of the working life of the deceased at the time of his death was 23 years excluding the period after his retirement. The dependency of the widow as also of the minor children would have lasted nearly the whole of the remaining working life of the deceased. The Tribunal calculated Rs. 500\/- p. m. as the amount which the deceased must have been providing for his family at the time of his death. In our opinion, this estimate is a bit low. Further, we have to take into account the increments which the deceased would have earned in future and also the prospect of his getting entry into the Indian Forest Service. Possible improvements in earning ability leading to variations in the rate of dependency are best taken into account by estimating an average rate over the total period, rather than a suc-\n<\/p>\n
cession of annuities: (Mallett v. Mc-Monagle (1970 AC 166) (supra) and Munkman, Damages for Personal Injur-ies and Death. 5th Edition, p. 158). Having regard to all the factors, we think that the average dependency should be estimated at Rs. 750\/- p. m. i. e. Rs. 9,000\/- per year. Taking into account the circumstance that the deceased would have remained in service for 23 years more from the date of his death, we select 15 as the number of years purchase i. e, the multiplier. The amount of damages to compensate for the loss of dependency thus works out to Rs. 1,35,000\/-. The present value of an annuity of Rs. 9,000\/- for 23 years on the basis of the interest rate of 4 per cent will also be nearly the same: (See Archer’s Loan Repayment and Compound Interest Tables, p. 365). We have still to estimate the benefits which the widow would have received after retirement from the pension and gratuity which the deceased would have received at the age of 58 years. We fix the value of this benefit at Rs. 10,000\/-. In our opinion, the claimants were thus entitled to Rs. 1,45,000\/- as damages from the respondents. Out of this amount we apportion Rs. 70,000\/- to the widow and Rs. 25,000\/- each to the three minor daughters. We have not divided the damages into two parts i. e. pre-trial and post-trial damages, because, there is no evidence that there would have been any appreciable change in the earning of the deceased from the date of his death up to the date when the Tribunal decided the case.\n<\/p>\n
 8. It was contended before us by the learned Government Advocate that the cross-obiection filed by the claimants is not maintainable as Order 41, Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not applicable to an appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act. It is not necessary to examine this point in detail because it is concluded in favour of the claimants by a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Manjula Devi v. Manjushri Raha. 1967 MPLJ 972. <\/p>\n
\n \n\n 9. As a result of the above discussion, the appeal is dismissed with costs. The cross-objection is partly allowed. The amount of damages awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 1,45,000\/- to be apportioned as indicated above. This amount will carry interest from the date of the award of the Tribunal at 6\n\nPER cent. There    will be no    order as to\ncosts of the cross-objection. \n\n \n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madhya Pradesh High Court The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Smt. Davi Rawat And Ors. on 12 August, 1980 Equivalent citations: AIR 1981 MP 173 Author: G Singh Bench: G Singh, U Bhachawat JUDGMENT G.P. Singh, C.J. 1. This is an appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, against an award, dated […]<\/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":[8,24],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-170780","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madhya-pradesh-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nThe State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Smt. Davi Rawat And Ors. on 12 August, 1980 - 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\/the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-smt-davi-rawat-and-ors-on-12-august-1980\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Smt. Davi Rawat And Ors. on 12 August, 1980 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-smt-davi-rawat-and-ors-on-12-august-1980\" \/>\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=\"1980-08-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-09-25T03:47:25+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\\\/the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-smt-davi-rawat-and-ors-on-12-august-1980#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-smt-davi-rawat-and-ors-on-12-august-1980\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Smt. Davi Rawat And Ors. on 12 August, 1980\",\"datePublished\":\"1980-08-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-25T03:47:25+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-smt-davi-rawat-and-ors-on-12-august-1980\"},\"wordCount\":2396,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madhya Pradesh High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-smt-davi-rawat-and-ors-on-12-august-1980#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-smt-davi-rawat-and-ors-on-12-august-1980\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-smt-davi-rawat-and-ors-on-12-august-1980\",\"name\":\"The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Smt. Davi Rawat And Ors. on 12 August, 1980 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1980-08-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-25T03:47:25+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-smt-davi-rawat-and-ors-on-12-august-1980#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-smt-davi-rawat-and-ors-on-12-august-1980\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-smt-davi-rawat-and-ors-on-12-august-1980#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Smt. Davi Rawat And Ors. on 12 August, 1980\"}]},{\"@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":"The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Smt. Davi Rawat And Ors. on 12 August, 1980 - 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\/the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-smt-davi-rawat-and-ors-on-12-august-1980","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Smt. Davi Rawat And Ors. on 12 August, 1980 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-smt-davi-rawat-and-ors-on-12-august-1980","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1980-08-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-09-25T03:47:25+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\/the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-smt-davi-rawat-and-ors-on-12-august-1980#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-smt-davi-rawat-and-ors-on-12-august-1980"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Smt. Davi Rawat And Ors. on 12 August, 1980","datePublished":"1980-08-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-25T03:47:25+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-smt-davi-rawat-and-ors-on-12-august-1980"},"wordCount":2396,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madhya Pradesh High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-smt-davi-rawat-and-ors-on-12-august-1980#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-smt-davi-rawat-and-ors-on-12-august-1980","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-smt-davi-rawat-and-ors-on-12-august-1980","name":"The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Smt. Davi Rawat And Ors. on 12 August, 1980 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1980-08-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-25T03:47:25+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-smt-davi-rawat-and-ors-on-12-august-1980#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-smt-davi-rawat-and-ors-on-12-august-1980"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-smt-davi-rawat-and-ors-on-12-august-1980#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Smt. Davi Rawat And Ors. on 12 August, 1980"}]},{"@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\/170780","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=170780"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/170780\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=170780"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=170780"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=170780"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}