{"id":174982,"date":"2008-09-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-09-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raju-rajendra-vs-mahaveer-singh-ors-on-5-september-2008"},"modified":"2015-06-15T04:43:43","modified_gmt":"2015-06-14T23:13:43","slug":"raju-rajendra-vs-mahaveer-singh-ors-on-5-september-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raju-rajendra-vs-mahaveer-singh-ors-on-5-september-2008","title":{"rendered":"Raju @ Rajendra vs Mahaveer Singh & Ors on 5 September, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur<\/div>\n
Raju @ Rajendra vs Mahaveer Singh & Ors on 5 September, 2008<\/div>\n
                                                              1\n\n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR\n  --------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n              1. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL No. 329 of 1997\n\n                           SMT. SITA & ANR\n                              V\/S\n                         MAHAVEER SINGH & ORS\n\n              2. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL No. 317 of 1997\n\n                             RAJU @ RAJENDRA\n                              V\/S\n                         MAHAVEER SINGH & ORS\n\n\n              3. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL No. 328 of 1997\n\n                            HANUMAN\n                              V\/S\n                         MAHAVEER SINGH & ORS\n\n\n\n    Mr. RAJESH PANWAR, for the appellant \/ petitioner\n\n    Mr. SANJEEV JOHARI, for the respondent\n\n    Date of Order : 5.9.2008\n\n                     HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J.\n\n                               ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
                               —–\n<\/p>\n
\n         These three appeals arise out of the common<\/p>\n
judgment of the learned Tribunal deciding three claim<\/p>\n
petitions. Appeal No. 329 arises out of claim no. 25 which<\/p>\n
is a claim lodged for compensation on account of death of<\/p>\n
Kalu. Appeal No. 328 arises out of claim no. 26, and Appeal<\/p>\n
No. 317 arises out of claim no. 39, and both these claims<\/p>\n
were filed for compensation for personal injuries received<\/p>\n
in the accident. All the three claims arise out of the same
\n                                                               2<\/span><\/p>\n
accident. In view of the above, all these three appeals are<\/p>\n
being decided by this common order.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
         The necessary facts are that on 27.11.1993 the<\/p>\n
three victims were travelling in Jeep No. RST-7051 from<\/p>\n
Ajmer to Deedwana. On the way when the Jeep reached<\/p>\n
Shyampura turn the delinquent truck came from opposite side<\/p>\n
being driven carelessly and at fast speed dashed against<\/p>\n
the jeep resulting into the victims sustaining injuries<\/p>\n
including death of Kalu Khan for which F.I.R. No. 146\/93<\/p>\n
was registered at Police Station Parbatsar.<\/p>\n
         Since the only controversy involved in the present<\/p>\n
appeals is about quantum of compensation awarded, as<\/p>\n
according to the claimants the compensation awarded is<\/p>\n
inadequate, therefore, I need not go into other aspects of<\/p>\n
the matter, and I may now take up the quantum of<\/p>\n
compensation in each of the appeals individually.<\/p>\n
         Appeal No. 329<\/span><\/p>\n
         In this case according to the claimants as<\/p>\n
projected during trial that the deceased was earning Rs.<\/p>\n
4000\/- per month by working as a Jeep driver, and was 22<\/p>\n
years of age. The claimants were parents and widow,<\/p>\n
however, others have died and now only widow survives. The<\/p>\n
learned Tribunal found that in the claim petition the
\n                                                                 3<\/span><\/p>\n
income of the deceased was disclosed to be Rs. 2600\/- per<\/p>\n
month, while during evidence it has been increased to Rs.<\/p>\n
4,000\/-. Then, the employer Shokat Ali has not been<\/p>\n
produced, nor the driving licence of the deceased has been<\/p>\n
produced. Likewise, it has been considered that even in the<\/p>\n
statement of Shokat Ali recorded as Ex. 1 there is no<\/p>\n
mention about Kalu being employed as driver by him. Thus,<\/p>\n
evidence of income about Rs. 4,000\/- was disbelieved and<\/p>\n
income was assessed at Rs. 1200\/- per month, and from out<\/p>\n
of this Rs. 400\/- has been deducted as personal expenditure<\/p>\n
and the dependency was assessed at Rs. 800\/- per month, and<\/p>\n
employing a multiplier of 10, the compensation has been<\/p>\n
assessed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
            Aruging the appeal it is contended by the learned<\/p>\n
counsel that the assessment of dependency made by the<\/p>\n
learned Tribunal is grossly inadequate, and at the same<\/p>\n
time the multiplier employed is also grossly inadequate<\/p>\n
even on the parameters, as are being followed in recent<\/p>\n
trend of judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.<\/p>\n
            Learned counsel for the respondent on the other<\/p>\n
hand supported the impugned order.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
            I have gone through the pleadings and evidence.<\/p>\n
The only evidence in the present case comprises of the<\/p>\n
statement of claimant Sita and Rehman. Rehman has deposed
\n                                                               4<\/span><\/p>\n
that the deceased was being paid a salary of Rs. 2000\/- per<\/p>\n
month, and was being separately paid other allowances, and<\/p>\n
was thus earning more than Rs. 4,000\/-, and he was<\/p>\n
contributing Rs. 3,000\/- per month to the family. Then,<\/p>\n
Sita claimant has also deposed that the deceased was<\/p>\n
receiving a salary of Rs. 2000\/- per month apart from other<\/p>\n
allowances totaling to about Rs. 4000\/- per month, and was<\/p>\n
contributing Rs. 3,000\/- per month to the family. In cross<\/p>\n
examination she has deposed that the deceased was spending<\/p>\n
Rs. 1000-1500 on himself. However, she has maintained that<\/p>\n
still he was paying Rs. 3000\/- per month in the family.<\/p>\n
         In my view, on the face of the pleadings taken in<\/p>\n
the claim petition, the claim projected during evidence is<\/p>\n
obviously exaggerated. In that view of the matter the bare<\/p>\n
ipse dixit cannot be taken on the face value. The learned<\/p>\n
Tribunal has rightly considered that neither Shokat the<\/p>\n
employer has been examined, nor the alleged driving licence<\/p>\n
of Kalu has been produced. In such circumstances, I do not<\/p>\n
find any error in the assessment of income, and consequent<\/p>\n
dependency as done by the learned Tribunal.<\/p>\n
         However, so far as the multiplier employed by the<\/p>\n
learned Tribunal is concerned, that in my view, is grossly<\/p>\n
inadequate inasmuch as in view of the recent judgments of<\/p>\n
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.<\/p>\n
Vs. Jashuben & Ors. reported in JT 2008(2) SC 415 and New
\n                                                               5<\/span><\/p>\n
India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt.Shanti Pathak & Ors.<\/p>\n
reported in JT 2007(9) SC 318, where in case of deceased<\/p>\n
being of the age of 30 plus the multiplier of 13 has been<\/p>\n
employed, here the deceased being 22 years of age, in my<\/p>\n
view, the appropriate multiplier to be employed should be<\/p>\n
14. Accordingly, the compensation of Rs. 96000\/- as awarded<\/p>\n
by the learned Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 1,34,400\/-.<\/p>\n
Accordingly the amount of compensation awarded by the<\/p>\n
learned Tribunal being Rs. 96,000\/- is enhanced to Rs.<\/p>\n
1,34,400\/-. The other awards and other terms of award are<\/p>\n
maintained.\n<\/p>\n
         Appeal No. 328<\/span><\/p>\n
         In this case according to the claimant Hanuman on<\/p>\n
account of accident his head was seriously damaged, and he<\/p>\n
received injuries on ribs and he was taken to Parbatsar<\/p>\n
Government Hospital, where 48 stitches were put on his<\/p>\n
head, and was referred to Ajmer, but on his own risk he<\/p>\n
remained at Parbatsar hospital, and remained hospitalised<\/p>\n
from 27.11.93 to 5.12.1993, and alleges to have remained<\/p>\n
unconscious for 17 hours. The claimant has produced the<\/p>\n
injury report Ex. 5, permanent disablement certificate<\/p>\n
Ex.9, and discharge certificate Ex.13. Considering the<\/p>\n
medical bills Ex. 14 and the above documents learned<\/p>\n
Tribunal found that the injured has received only four<\/p>\n
injuries, and according to the X-Ray report all injuries
\n                                                               6<\/span><\/p>\n
are simple. The total medical expenditure incurred on<\/p>\n
medicines is shown to be Rs. 1928\/-, and according to the<\/p>\n
disability certificate Ex. 9, there is a disfiguration of<\/p>\n
face on account of scar, but then in this certificate it<\/p>\n
has not been mentioned as to what is the percentage of<\/p>\n
disfiguration, and that Ex.5, 6 and 9 do not show that the<\/p>\n
accident would adversely effect his future income at all.<\/p>\n
Thus, the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 2000\/- for<\/p>\n
medical expenditure, Rs. 1000\/- for loss of income, and Rs.<\/p>\n
1000\/- for mental pain and agony, Rs. 1000\/- for<\/p>\n
transportation and Rs. 25,000\/- as general damages for the<\/p>\n
injuries, and alleged permanent disability. It is<\/p>\n
significant to note that the version given by the claimant<\/p>\n
is seriously exaggerated, inasmuch as there is nothing on<\/p>\n
record to show either that the victim was administered 48<\/p>\n
stitches, or that he remained unconscious for 17 hours, as<\/p>\n
alleged. In my view, looking to the certificate Ex. 9 and<\/p>\n
the injury report and X-Ray report, it cannot be said that<\/p>\n
the overall assessment of compensation made by the learned<\/p>\n
Tribunal requires any interference by this Court in<\/p>\n
appellate jurisdiction. In that view of the matter this<\/p>\n
appeal is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
         Appeal No. 317<\/span><\/p>\n
         In this case according to the claimant he<\/p>\n
sustained injury on the left side of the head, C.T. Scan
\n                                                               7<\/span><\/p>\n
examination and X-Ray was conducted in Jaipur where he<\/p>\n
remained hospitalised from 27.11.1993 to 10.12.1993. He<\/p>\n
sustained fracture on head, and by the injury of the head<\/p>\n
his position became that of like a paralytic one, the<\/p>\n
movement of one leg and hand was obstructed, he felt<\/p>\n
inconvenience in left hand, and left leg does not move, and<\/p>\n
he feels difficulty in walking, and also in cycling. The<\/p>\n
learned Tribunal considered Ex. 9 being injury report, and<\/p>\n
Ex. 8 X-ray report. According to Ex.9 there were three<\/p>\n
injuries in all, and out of them two were simple and one<\/p>\n
was advised for X-Ray. After X-ray in Ex. 8 that injury was<\/p>\n
also found to be simple. Then, in permanent disability<\/p>\n
certificate being Ex. 11, the victim is certified to have<\/p>\n
suffered 25% of hemiparesis, and   on account of<\/p>\n
disfiguration of face he has suffered 5% permanent<\/p>\n
disablement. The learned Tribunal also considered Discharge<\/p>\n
Certificate   Ex. 12 and C.T.Scan report Ex. 13, and found<\/p>\n
that the claimant has produced receipt of Rs. 4200\/- having<\/p>\n
been spent on transportation, and the statement of<\/p>\n
expenditure on medicine amounting to Rs. 6936\/- against<\/p>\n
which the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 4000\/- and<\/p>\n
7000\/- respectively. Then, the claimant has claimed to be<\/p>\n
earning Rs. 4000\/- per month but in cross examination he<\/p>\n
admits that he sells news-paper worth Rs. 450\/- and gets<\/p>\n
commission of 20%. Thus, it was found that the income does<\/p>\n
not exceed Rs. 2700\/- per month. With this the learned<\/p>\n
Tribunal has awarded Rs. 25,000\/- for permanent disablement
\n                                                                8<\/span><\/p>\n
and Rs. 1000\/- for mental pain and agony and a sum of Rs.<\/p>\n
20,000\/- has been awarded for loss of income. Thus, a total<\/p>\n
award of Rs. 57,000\/- has been made.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
           In my view, looking to the permanent disablement,<\/p>\n
the amount awarded under the head of pain and agony and<\/p>\n
permanent disablement, so also loss of income is required<\/p>\n
to be collectively enhanced by another sum of Rs. 30,000\/-.<\/p>\n
           Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed, and the<\/p>\n
total compensation awarded being Rs. 57,000\/- is enhanced<\/p>\n
to Rs. 87,000.   The other terms of award are maintained.<\/p>\n
           In the result the Appeal No. 329 is allowed, and<\/p>\n
the amount of compensation of Rs. 96,000\/- as awarded is<\/p>\n
enhanced to Rs. 1,34,4000\/-; Appeal No. 328 is dismissed;<\/p>\n
while the Appeal No. 317 is partly allowed, and the<\/p>\n
compensation of Rs. 57,000\/- as awarded is enhanced to Rs.<\/p>\n
87,000\/-. The other terms of the award are maintained. The<\/p>\n
parties shall bear their own costs.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                       ( N P GUPTA ),J.\n<\/p>\n
\n\/Sushil\/\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur Raju @ Rajendra vs Mahaveer Singh & Ors on 5 September, 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR ——————————————————– 1. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL No. 329 of 1997 SMT. SITA & ANR V\/S MAHAVEER SINGH & ORS 2. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL No. 317 of 1997 RAJU […]<\/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-174982","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-rajasthan-high-court-jodhpur"],"yoast_head":"\nRaju @ Rajendra vs Mahaveer Singh & Ors on 5 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\/raju-rajendra-vs-mahaveer-singh-ors-on-5-september-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Raju @ Rajendra vs Mahaveer Singh & Ors on 5 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raju-rajendra-vs-mahaveer-singh-ors-on-5-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=\"2008-09-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-06-14T23:13:43+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raju-rajendra-vs-mahaveer-singh-ors-on-5-september-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raju-rajendra-vs-mahaveer-singh-ors-on-5-september-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Raju @ Rajendra vs Mahaveer Singh & Ors on 5 September, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-14T23:13:43+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raju-rajendra-vs-mahaveer-singh-ors-on-5-september-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1589,\"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\\\/raju-rajendra-vs-mahaveer-singh-ors-on-5-september-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raju-rajendra-vs-mahaveer-singh-ors-on-5-september-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raju-rajendra-vs-mahaveer-singh-ors-on-5-september-2008\",\"name\":\"Raju @ Rajendra vs Mahaveer Singh & Ors on 5 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-14T23:13:43+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raju-rajendra-vs-mahaveer-singh-ors-on-5-september-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raju-rajendra-vs-mahaveer-singh-ors-on-5-september-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raju-rajendra-vs-mahaveer-singh-ors-on-5-september-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Raju @ Rajendra vs Mahaveer Singh & Ors on 5 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":"Raju @ Rajendra vs Mahaveer Singh & Ors on 5 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\/raju-rajendra-vs-mahaveer-singh-ors-on-5-september-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Raju @ Rajendra vs Mahaveer Singh & Ors on 5 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raju-rajendra-vs-mahaveer-singh-ors-on-5-september-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-09-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-06-14T23:13:43+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raju-rajendra-vs-mahaveer-singh-ors-on-5-september-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raju-rajendra-vs-mahaveer-singh-ors-on-5-september-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Raju @ Rajendra vs Mahaveer Singh & Ors on 5 September, 2008","datePublished":"2008-09-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-14T23:13:43+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raju-rajendra-vs-mahaveer-singh-ors-on-5-september-2008"},"wordCount":1589,"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\/raju-rajendra-vs-mahaveer-singh-ors-on-5-september-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raju-rajendra-vs-mahaveer-singh-ors-on-5-september-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raju-rajendra-vs-mahaveer-singh-ors-on-5-september-2008","name":"Raju @ Rajendra vs Mahaveer Singh & Ors on 5 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-09-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-14T23:13:43+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raju-rajendra-vs-mahaveer-singh-ors-on-5-september-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raju-rajendra-vs-mahaveer-singh-ors-on-5-september-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raju-rajendra-vs-mahaveer-singh-ors-on-5-september-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Raju @ Rajendra vs Mahaveer Singh & Ors on 5 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\/174982","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=174982"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/174982\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=174982"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=174982"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=174982"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}