{"id":172654,"date":"2008-10-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-10-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sneh-lata-vs-the-haryana-state-and-others-on-16-october-2008"},"modified":"2016-06-10T01:42:52","modified_gmt":"2016-06-09T20:12:52","slug":"sneh-lata-vs-the-haryana-state-and-others-on-16-october-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sneh-lata-vs-the-haryana-state-and-others-on-16-october-2008","title":{"rendered":"Sneh Lata vs The Haryana State And Others on 16 October, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Sneh Lata vs The Haryana State And Others on 16 October, 2008<\/div>\n
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA\n            AT CHANDIGARH.\n\n\n(1)    F.A.O.No.652 of 1988\n\nSneh Lata.\n                            ....... Appellant through Shri\n                                    J.R.Mittal,Senior Advocate\n                                    with Shri Kashmir Singh\n                                    and Shri Lalit Sharma,\n                                    Advocates.\n\n      Versus\n\nThe Haryana State and others.\n\n                            ....... Respondents through Nemo.\n\n(2)    F.A.O.No.653 of 1988\n\nSwaran Lata.\n                            ....... Appellant through Shri\n                                    J.R.Mittal,Senior Advocate\n                                    with Shri Kashmir Singh\n                                    and Shri Lalit Sharma,\n                                    Advocates.\n\n      Versus\n\nThe Haryana State and others.\n\n                            ....... Respondents through Nemo.\n\n\n(3)    F.A.O.No.654 of 1988\n\nParbodh Chander.\n                            ....... Appellant through Shri\n                                    J.R.Mittal,Senior Advocate\n                                    with Shri Kashmir Singh\n                                    and Shri Lalit Sharma,\n                                    Advocates.\n\n      Versus\n\nThe Haryana State and others.\n\n                            ....... Respondents through Nemo.\n                 F.A.O.No.652 of 1988\n\n                         -2-\n\n                        ....\n\n\n(4)    F.A.O.No.655 of 1988\n\nPushpa Devi.\n                               ....... Appellant through Shri\n                                       J.R.Mittal,Senior Advocate\n                                       with Shri Kashmir Singh\n                                       and Shri Lalit Sharma,\n                                       Advocates.\n\n      Versus\n\nThe Haryana State and others.\n\n                               ....... Respondents through Nemo.\n\n(5)    F.A.O.No.656 of 1988\n\nSaroj Kumari.\n                               ....... Appellant through Shri\n                                       J.R.Mittal,Senior Advocate\n                                       with Shri Kashmir Singh\n                                       and Shri Lalit Sharma,\n                                       Advocates.\n\n      Versus\n\nThe Haryana State and others.\n\n                               ....... Respondents through Nemo.\n\n(6)    F.A.O.No.668 of 1988\n\nRaj Kumar.\n                               ....... Appellant through Shri\n                                       J.R.Mittal,Senior Advocate\n                                       with Shri Kashmir Singh\n                                       and Shri Lalit Sharma,\n                                       Advocates.\n\n      Versus\n\nThe Haryana State and others.\n\n                               ....... Respondents through Nemo.\n                      F.A.O.No.652 of 1988\n\n                               -3-\n\n                               ....\n\n\n(7)    F.A.O.No.886 of 1988\n\n      Raj Kumar and another.\n                                      ....... Appellant through Shri\n                                              J.R.Mittal,Senior Advocate\n                                              with Shri Kashmir Singh\n                                              and Shri Lalit Sharma,\n                                              Advocates.\n\n            Versus\n\n      The Haryana State and others.\n\n                                      ....... Respondents through Nemo.\n\n\n      (8)    F.A.O.No.887 of 1988\n\n      Manoj Kumar.\n                                      ....... Appellant through Shri\n                                              J.R.Mittal,Senior Advocate\n                                              with Shri Kashmir Singh\n                                              and Shri Lalit Sharma,\n                                              Advocates.\n\n            Versus\n\n      The Haryana State and others.\n\n                                      ....... Respondents through Nemo.\n\n\n                        Date of Decision: 16.10.2008\n\n\nCORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER\n\n                        ....\n\n      1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to\n         see the judgment?\n      2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?\n      3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?\n\n                        ....\n                               F.A.O.No.652 of 1988\n\n                                       -4-\n\n                                       ....\n\n\nMahesh Grover,J.\n<\/pre>\n
              This judgment will dispose of the above mentioned eight<\/p>\n
appeals which have been preferred against common award dated 25.1.1988<\/p>\n
passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ropar (for short, `the<\/p>\n
Tribunal’) in M.A.C.T. Case Nos. 53 & 54 of 6.10.1986 and 57 to 66 of<\/p>\n
23.10.1986.\n<\/p>\n
              In a motor vehicular accident which occurred on 24.4.1986,<\/p>\n
one girl child of two years lost her life while remaining occupants of jeep<\/p>\n
bearing registration No.HID-8573 in which they were travelling received<\/p>\n
injuries. The bus No. HRV-2752 belonging to the Haryana Roadways is<\/p>\n
said to have hit the aforesaid jeep on Chandigarh-Ambala Road in the area<\/p>\n
of Zirakpur.\n<\/p>\n
              Raj Kumar and Swaran Lata filed M.A.C.T. Case No.53 of<\/p>\n
6.10.1986 for grant of compensation for the death of their girl, namely,<\/p>\n
Gudia, whereas the other claim petitions were filed by the injured persons<\/p>\n
except   M.A.C.T.Case No.66 of          23.10.1986 which was preferred by<\/p>\n
Parbodh Chander on account of damage to the jeep.<\/p>\n
              The Tribunal dismissed the claim petitions of claimants- Kiran<\/p>\n
Kanta, Kanta Devi, Saroj Kumari, Chander Rekha and Parbodh Chander and<\/p>\n
allowed those of others.\n<\/p>\n
              There is no challenge to the issue of negligence.<\/p>\n
              No one appears for the respondents as well.<\/p>\n
              The only question which requires determination in these<\/p>\n
appeals is as to what is the appropriate compensation that should be
\n                              F.A.O.No.652 of 1988<\/p>\n
                                      -5-<\/span><\/p>\n
                                     ….\n<\/p>\n
\nawarded to the appellants.\n<\/p>\n
            First of all, I would take up F.A.O. No.886 of 1988 which<\/p>\n
arises out of the claim petition preferred by the parents of the deceased<\/p>\n
minor child of 2 years.\n<\/p>\n
            The Tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs.15000\/-. The<\/p>\n
appellants have prayed for enhancement of the compensation.<\/p>\n
            Although in the case of the death of a minor child of 2 years,<\/p>\n
the normal mode of computation of compensation is not applicable as it is<\/p>\n
difficult even to assess his or her notional income, yet, drawing support<\/p>\n
from the judgment of the Apex Court in Manju Devi and another Versus<\/p>\n
Musafir Paswan and another, 2005 A.C.J. 99,           this Court is of the<\/p>\n
considered opinion that a lump-sum amount of Rs.2,00,000\/- would be<\/p>\n
sufficient to meet the ends of justice. It may be mentioned that in the<\/p>\n
aforesaid case, a boy, aged 13 years, had died in an accident and their<\/p>\n
Lordships took his notional income as Rs.15000\/- per annum and applied a<\/p>\n
multiplier of `15′ and allowed Rs.2,25,000\/- as compensation to his parents.<\/p>\n
            In view of the above, the parents of the minor girl child are<\/p>\n
held entitled to receive a sum of Rs.2,00,000\/- which shall also include loss<\/p>\n
of love and natural affection.\n<\/p>\n
            F.A.O.No.652 of 1988<\/p>\n
            The appellant- Sneh Lata was awarded a sum of Rs.2500\/- by<\/p>\n
the Tribunal. According to PW8-Dr.Davy Olakkengil, she had tenderness in<\/p>\n
her left groin and after ex-ray examination, a fracture of the superior and<\/p>\n
inferior pubic rami on the left side was found. However, no permanent
\n                               F.A.O.No.652 of 1988<\/p>\n
                                       -6-<\/span><\/p>\n
                                       ….\n<\/p>\n
\ndisability was detected.\n<\/p>\n
               Although there is no permanent disability, yet, the appellant<\/p>\n
had suffered a fracture and, therefore, the compensation awarded by the<\/p>\n
Tribunal is inadequate. In my opinion, it would be appropriate if a total sum<\/p>\n
of Rs.25000\/- is awarded to the appellant which shall include the<\/p>\n
compensation on account of pain &             suffering and agony. Ordered<\/p>\n
accordingly.\n<\/p>\n
               F.A.O.No.653 of 1988<\/p>\n
               The appellant-Swaran Lata was granted a total sum of<\/p>\n
Rs.2500\/- (Rs.2000\/- for the injuries suffered by her and Rs.500\/- for pain &<\/p>\n
suffering).\n<\/p>\n
                PW10-Dr.G.R.Verma had examined the appellant and found<\/p>\n
that she was having haematoma on the left frontal region above the left orbit<\/p>\n
and swelling & tenderness in her right wrist. According to him, she had<\/p>\n
sustained a fracture on the right forearm.<\/p>\n
               Although there is nothing on the record to suggest that the<\/p>\n
appellant had suffered any permanent disability, yet, she had received a<\/p>\n
fracture on the right forearm besides other injuries. In view of this, the<\/p>\n
compensation allowed by the Tribunal is inadequate.<\/p>\n
               Considering the nature of injuries which the appellant suffered<\/p>\n
including the fracture, it would be just and appropriate that a sum of<\/p>\n
Rs.25,000\/- is awarded as compensation to her which shall include the<\/p>\n
amount for pain & suffering and agony. Ordered accordingly.\n<\/p>\n
                              F.A.O.No.652 of 1988<\/p>\n
                                        -7-<\/span><\/p>\n
                                        ….\n<\/p>\n
\n             F.A.O.No.654 of 1988<\/p>\n
             The Tribunal dismissed the claim petition filed by the appellant<\/p>\n
for grant of compensation on account of damage to the jeep.<\/p>\n
             A perusal of the impugned award shows that the appellant<\/p>\n
failed to prove his ownership. Even the registration certificate of the jeep<\/p>\n
was not brought on record. The appellant also did not step into the witness<\/p>\n
box to state in support of his claim.\n<\/p>\n
             In my opinion, there is no infirmity in the conclusion recorded<\/p>\n
by the Tribunal and the appeal deserves to be dismissed.<\/p>\n
             F.A.O. No.655 of 1988<\/p>\n
             The appellant-Pushpa Devi was allowed a sum of Rs.2500\/- as<\/p>\n
compensation by the Tribunal for the injuries suffered by her in the<\/p>\n
accident.\n<\/p>\n
             According to PW10-Dr.G.R.Verma, who had referred to the<\/p>\n
injuries of the appellant, she was having fracture of lower end of the left<\/p>\n
side radius bone which was grievous in nature, besides another lacerated<\/p>\n
would on the right fronto temporal region which was bleeding.<\/p>\n
             However, there is no proof of any permanent disability of any<\/p>\n
kind.\n<\/p>\n
             Accordingly, while treating her case at par to that of       the<\/p>\n
appellants in F.A.O.Nos.652 and 653 of 1988, the appellant herein is<\/p>\n
awarded a sum of Rs.25,000\/- as compensation.<\/p>\n
             F.A.O.No.656 of 1988<\/p>\n
             The claim petition of             the appellant-Saroj Kumari was
\n                                 F.A.O.No.652 of 1988<\/p>\n
                                         -8-<\/span><\/p>\n
                                        ….\n<\/p>\n
\ndismissed by the Tribunal as PW5-Dr.Davy Olakkengil observed that she<\/p>\n
was having only pain and swelling over the left elbow and there was no<\/p>\n
bony injury.\n<\/p>\n
               In my opinion, the approach of the Tribunal is correct and does<\/p>\n
not require any interference.\n<\/p>\n
               F.A.O.No.668 of 1988<\/p>\n
               The appellant-Raj Kumar was awarded a total sum of<\/p>\n
Rs.20,000\/- for the injuries suffered by him in the accident. Feeling dis-<\/p>\n
satisfied, he has preferred this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
               PW1-Dr.Shiv Inder Singh Gill had found a fracture of right<\/p>\n
shaft femur of the appellant, who was an Assistant Sub Inspector in<\/p>\n
Wireless Section of Punjab Police. This witness had found that the appellant<\/p>\n
had suffered 25% permanent partial disability as a result of the injuries<\/p>\n
sustained by him.\n<\/p>\n
               Keeping in view the fracture and the disability suffered by the<\/p>\n
appellant, I am of the opinion that the compensation awarded by the<\/p>\n
Tribunal is inadequate.\n<\/p>\n
               Having regard to the aforesaid, it would be just and appropriate<\/p>\n
if the appellant is awarded a total sum of Rs.50,000\/- for the permanent<\/p>\n
disability and Rs.30,000\/- are allowed for pain & suffering, attendant and<\/p>\n
medicines etc. It is accordingly ordered that the appellant shall be entitled to<\/p>\n
receive a consolidated compensation of Rs.80,000\/-.<\/p>\n
               F.A.O.No.887 of 1988<\/p>\n
               The appellant-Manoj Kumar was awarded a total sum of
\n                                F.A.O.No.652 of 1988<\/p>\n
                                         -9-<\/span><\/p>\n
                                        ….\n<\/p>\n
\nRs.500\/- for the lacerated wound on the occipital region with bleeding<\/p>\n
present.\n<\/p>\n
             PW10-Dr.G.R.Verma had found the aforesaid injury of the<\/p>\n
appellant to be simple in nature with no disability of any kind.<\/p>\n
             However, in my opinion, the compensation awarded by the<\/p>\n
Tribunal is on the lower side.\n<\/p>\n
             Considering the fact that the appellant had sustained injury in<\/p>\n
the accident and also suffered pain on that account, the amount of<\/p>\n
compensation of Rs.500\/- as awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to<\/p>\n
Rs.5000\/-.\n<\/p>\n
             The enhanced amount of compensation shall be paid to the<\/p>\n
appellants along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of<\/p>\n
filing of the claim petitions till the date of realisation.<\/p>\n
             The liability to pay the enhanced compensation and interest<\/p>\n
shall be the same as has been determined by the Tribunal.<\/p>\n
             Consequently, the impugned award is modified to the aforesaid<\/p>\n
extent and F.A.O.Nos.652, 653, 655, 668, 886 & 887 of 1988 are allowed,<\/p>\n
whereas F.A.O.Nos. 654 and 656 of 1988 are dismissed.<\/p>\n
October 16,2008                                     ( Mahesh Grover )\n\"SCM\"                                                   Judge\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Sneh Lata vs The Haryana State And Others on 16 October, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. (1) F.A.O.No.652 of 1988 Sneh Lata. ……. Appellant through Shri J.R.Mittal,Senior Advocate with Shri Kashmir Singh and Shri Lalit Sharma, Advocates. Versus The Haryana State and others. ……. Respondents through […]<\/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":[8,28],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-172654","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSneh Lata vs The Haryana State And Others on 16 October, 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\/sneh-lata-vs-the-haryana-state-and-others-on-16-october-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sneh Lata vs The Haryana State And Others on 16 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sneh-lata-vs-the-haryana-state-and-others-on-16-october-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=\"2008-10-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-06-09T20:12:52+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sneh-lata-vs-the-haryana-state-and-others-on-16-october-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sneh-lata-vs-the-haryana-state-and-others-on-16-october-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sneh Lata vs The Haryana State And Others on 16 October, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-10-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-09T20:12:52+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sneh-lata-vs-the-haryana-state-and-others-on-16-october-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1378,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Punjab-Haryana High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sneh-lata-vs-the-haryana-state-and-others-on-16-october-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sneh-lata-vs-the-haryana-state-and-others-on-16-october-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sneh-lata-vs-the-haryana-state-and-others-on-16-october-2008\",\"name\":\"Sneh Lata vs The Haryana State And Others on 16 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-10-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-09T20:12:52+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sneh-lata-vs-the-haryana-state-and-others-on-16-october-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sneh-lata-vs-the-haryana-state-and-others-on-16-october-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sneh-lata-vs-the-haryana-state-and-others-on-16-october-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sneh Lata vs The Haryana State And Others on 16 October, 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":"Sneh Lata vs The Haryana State And Others on 16 October, 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\/sneh-lata-vs-the-haryana-state-and-others-on-16-october-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sneh Lata vs The Haryana State And Others on 16 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sneh-lata-vs-the-haryana-state-and-others-on-16-october-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-10-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-06-09T20:12:52+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sneh-lata-vs-the-haryana-state-and-others-on-16-october-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sneh-lata-vs-the-haryana-state-and-others-on-16-october-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sneh Lata vs The Haryana State And Others on 16 October, 2008","datePublished":"2008-10-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-09T20:12:52+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sneh-lata-vs-the-haryana-state-and-others-on-16-october-2008"},"wordCount":1378,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Punjab-Haryana High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sneh-lata-vs-the-haryana-state-and-others-on-16-october-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sneh-lata-vs-the-haryana-state-and-others-on-16-october-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sneh-lata-vs-the-haryana-state-and-others-on-16-october-2008","name":"Sneh Lata vs The Haryana State And Others on 16 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-10-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-09T20:12:52+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sneh-lata-vs-the-haryana-state-and-others-on-16-october-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sneh-lata-vs-the-haryana-state-and-others-on-16-october-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sneh-lata-vs-the-haryana-state-and-others-on-16-october-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sneh Lata vs The Haryana State And Others on 16 October, 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\/172654","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=172654"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/172654\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=172654"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=172654"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=172654"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}