{"id":187843,"date":"2008-11-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-11-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramchandra-yadav-vs-mastan-singh-on-7-november-2008"},"modified":"2017-06-11T08:42:13","modified_gmt":"2017-06-11T03:12:13","slug":"ramchandra-yadav-vs-mastan-singh-on-7-november-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramchandra-yadav-vs-mastan-singh-on-7-november-2008","title":{"rendered":"Ramchandra Yadav vs Mastan Singh on 7 November, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Chattisgarh High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Ramchandra Yadav vs Mastan Singh on 7 November, 2008<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n             HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR      \n\n                  Misc. Appeal No.829 of 1998\n\n                       1.       Ramchandra  Yadav\n\n                        2.       Raj  Kishore Yadav\n\n                        3.       Awdhesh Yadav\n                                               ...Petitioners\n\n                            Versus\n\n                       1.       Mastan   Singh\n\n                        2.       Divisional    Manager\n                                                ...Respondents\n\n\n\n\n!     Shri Rakesh Anthony, counsel for the appellants.\n\n\n\n^         Shri Ashish Surana, counsel for respondent No.1.\n          Shri Vinay Harit, Sr. Advocate with\n          Shri S.K. Mishra, Advocate for respondent No.2.\n\n        Division Bench: Hon'ble Shri Dhirendra Mishra &amp;\n                         Hon'ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha, JJ.\n\n\n      Dated:07\/11\/2008\n\n:      Judgement\n\n\n     (Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act)\n      Present:\n\n\n                           O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n<p>                (Passed on 7th November, 2008)<\/p>\n<p>           The  following  order of the Court  was  passed  by<br \/>\nDhirendra Mishra, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>  1.   This is owner&#8217;s appeal against the award dated 23rd April<br \/>\n     1998 passed in claim case No.74\/91 whereby learned Additional<br \/>\n     Motor  Accident Claims Tribunal, Korba allowing the claim<br \/>\n     petition  of  respondents  No.1 awarded  compensation  of<br \/>\n     Rs.1,60,000\/- in favour of the claimant\/respondent and held<br \/>\n     the owner of the vehicle liable for payment of compensation by<br \/>\n     exonerating  the Insurance Company from its liability  to<br \/>\n     satisfy compensation amount.\n<\/p>\n<p>  2.    The  appellants are legal representatives of  original<br \/>\n     appellant Ram Deo Yadav, who was registered owner of the Jeep<br \/>\n     bearing registration No. U.M.B.\/5253.\n<\/p>\n<p>  3.   Briefly stated the case of the claimant before the Claims<br \/>\n     Tribunal was that on 8-6-1991 he was going with his wife and<br \/>\n     others in the jeep from Champa to Korba.  The jeep was owned<br \/>\n     by Ram Deo Yadav and driven by Ram Gopal.  The driver of the<br \/>\n     jeep, rashly and negligently driving the jeep, dashed  it<br \/>\n     against a culvert, as a result he sustained grievous injuries.<br \/>\n     He was admitted in the 100 bedded Hospital, Korba from where<br \/>\n     he was referred for further treatment to Bhilai Steel Plant<br \/>\n     Hospital.  Ultimately, his left leg was amputed.  Before the<br \/>\n     accident, he was working as a contractor and was  earning<br \/>\n     Rs.5,000\/- per month from that profession.  However, because<br \/>\n     of the disablement he is not able to do his business and he<br \/>\n     has lost his earning capacity.  The vehicle was insured for<br \/>\n     the relevant period with Non-applicant No.3. The claimant<br \/>\n     claimed compensation of Rs.24,98,000\/- under various heads.\n<\/p>\n<p>  4.    Respondents No.1 and 2 in their reply stated that  the<br \/>\n     claimants are acquainted with the appellant as they are their<br \/>\n     neighbours. They were traveling in the jeep as gratuitous<br \/>\n     passenger and no fare was charged from them.  They denied that<br \/>\n     the jeep was driven rashly and negligently.  It was pleaded<br \/>\n     that the accident occurred due to mechanical failure of Tie<br \/>\n     Rod.  The claimant sustained simple injuries and his leg was<br \/>\n     amputed because of his own negligence, as he did not undergo<br \/>\n     proper treatment.  The claimant has made inflated claims, as<br \/>\n     he is still capable of doing his business.  The Insurance<br \/>\n     Company in its reply denied allegations of the claimant and<br \/>\n     further contended that claimant was traveling in the vehicle<br \/>\n     as  passenger  after paying fare and, therefore,  as  per<br \/>\n     condition of the insurance policy, there is breach of policy<br \/>\n     condition,  as  private vehicle was used  for  hire  and,<br \/>\n     therefore, Insurance Company is not liable for payment of any<br \/>\n     compensation.\n<\/p>\n<p>  5.   During trial, claimant examined himself as AW-1, his wife<br \/>\n     Kuldip Kaur as AW-2, Gurudev Singh as AW-3 whereas,  Non-<br \/>\n     applicant No.1 Ram Gopal (driver) has been examined as NAW-1.<br \/>\n     Non-applicant No.3 did not examine any witness.\n<\/p>\n<p>  6.    The Tribunal after careful examination of the evidence<br \/>\n     led by the respective parties held that the accident occurred<br \/>\n     due to rash and negligent driving of the jeep by Non-applicant<br \/>\n     No.1; the claimant sustained grievous injuries due to accident<br \/>\n     resulting in permanent disability; the claimant is entitled<br \/>\n     for compensation of Rs.1,60,000\/- with interest @ 12% per<br \/>\n     annum from the date of award.  Non-applicant No.3 is  not<br \/>\n     liable for payment of compensation amount as Non-applicants<br \/>\n     No.1 and 2 have failed to prove that the vehicle was insured<br \/>\n     with Non-applicant No.3 for the relevant period.\n<\/p>\n<p>  7.   Shri Rakesh Anthoni, learned counsel for the appellants<br \/>\n     contended that he had submitted original insurance policy<br \/>\n     during trial.  However, original records of the claim case<br \/>\n     were destroyed due to fire in the record room.  The appellant<br \/>\n     had submitted copy of the original policy, but learned Claims<br \/>\n     Tribunal refused to accept the same.  He has filed copy of the<br \/>\n     insurance policy along with memo of appeal.  From perusal of<br \/>\n     the insurance policy, it would be evident that vehicle was<br \/>\n     insured with Non-applicant No.3 for the relevant period.  He<br \/>\n     further argued that the amount of compensation awarded to the<br \/>\n     respondent\/claimant is highly excessive.\n<\/p>\n<p>  8.   Shri Ashish Surana, learned counsel for respondent No.1,<br \/>\n     contended that left leg of the claimant was required to be<br \/>\n     amputed  as  a  result of the accident.  Because  of  the<br \/>\n     amputation, the claimant suffered 100% permanent disability<br \/>\n     and there is total loss of earning capacity. The Tribunal<br \/>\n     after due consideration of the evidence available on record<br \/>\n     has rightly assessed compensation which does not call for any<br \/>\n     interference.\n<\/p>\n<p>  9.   Shri Vinay Harit, learned Senior Counsel with Shri S.K.<br \/>\n     Mishra, counsel for respondent No.2, fairly submitted that the<br \/>\n     vehicle was insured with Non-applicant No.3 for the relevant<br \/>\n     period and the finding of the Tribunal in this regard  is<br \/>\n     erroneous.  However, he contended that the vehicle in question<br \/>\n     was insured as a private vehicle.  From perusal of the policy<br \/>\n     filed by the appellant along with memo of appeal, it would be<br \/>\n     evident that the appellant did not pay any extra premium for<br \/>\n     covering risk of any gratuitous passenger.  The vehicle was<br \/>\n     used for hire, as the claimant pleaded in the claim petition<br \/>\n     that he was traveling in the jeep after paying fare.\n<\/p>\n<p>  10.   Reliance  is  placed  in the matter  of  <a href=\"\/doc\/423517\/\">United  India<br \/>\n     Insurance Company Ltd., Shimla V. Tilak Singh &amp; Ors1.<\/a>\n<\/p>\n<p>  11.   We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have<br \/>\n     perused the impugned award and evidence available on record.\n<\/p>\n<p>  12.  The Tribunal on close scrutiny of the evidence available<br \/>\n     on record and relying upon evidence of claimant Mastan Singh<br \/>\n     and other witnesses namely, Kuldip Kaur and Gurudeo Singh has<br \/>\n     held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent<br \/>\n     driving of the driver.  The evidence of the driver that the<br \/>\n     accident  occurred  due to mechanical  failure  has  been<br \/>\n     disbelieved.\n<\/p>\n<p>  13.   It  has  been further held that the claimant  suffered<br \/>\n     permanent  disability  as a result of  grievous  injuries<br \/>\n     sustained in the aforesaid accident.  The appellants have<br \/>\n     failed  to  prove that the vehicle was insured with  Non-<br \/>\n     applicant  No.3  for the relevant period and,  therefore,<br \/>\n     Insurance Company is not liable for satisfying compensation.\n<\/p>\n<p>  14.  Rejecting the claim of the claimant that he was earning<br \/>\n     Rs.5,000\/- per month, a sum of Rs.50,000\/- was awarded towards<br \/>\n     medicine and hospital expenses incurred by the claimant after<br \/>\n     the accident.  Apart from the above amount, a lump sum amount<br \/>\n     of Rs.1 lakh has been awarded to the claimant towards loss of<br \/>\n     earning capacity due to permanent disability suffered in the<br \/>\n     accident.   Apart from the above sum, a sum of Rs.5,000\/-<br \/>\n     towards expenditure in transportation and Rs.5,000\/- has been<br \/>\n     awarded as special diet.  Hence, total sum of Rs.1,60,000\/-<br \/>\n     has been awarded as compensation to the claimant.  Amputation<br \/>\n     of leg of the claimant as a result of the injuries sustained<br \/>\n     by him in the accident has not been disputed by the claimant.<br \/>\n     At the time of his examination the Tribunal has observed in<br \/>\n     paragraph-3 that the claimant was able to walk with the help<br \/>\n     of artificial limb, as his left leg was amputed from 4&#8243; above<br \/>\n     knee  level.  Looking to the permanent disability of  the<br \/>\n     claimant and also considering his age, lump sum amount of Rs.1<br \/>\n     lakh cannot be termed to be too excessive towards loss of<br \/>\n     earning capacity of the claimant due to amputation of leg.<br \/>\n     Similarly, award of Rs.50,000\/- as expense towards treatment<br \/>\n     is also modest and proper keeping in view the fact that the<br \/>\n     claimant has submitted vouchers (Ex.-P\/3 to Ex.-P\/15) for a<br \/>\n     sum of Rs.36,585.89\/-. Similarly, amount of Rs.5,000\/- each<br \/>\n     towards expenses of transportation and special diet during<br \/>\n     treatment is also proper and does not call for interference.\n<\/p>\n<p>  15.  On due consideration of the evidence of the claimant and<br \/>\n     his two witnesses namely, Kuldip Kaur and Gurudeo Singh, we<br \/>\n     are of the opinion that the Tribunal has rightly disbelieved<br \/>\n     the defence of the appellant and evidence of driver Ram Gopal<br \/>\n     that the accident occurred because of mechanical failure due<br \/>\n     to breaking of Tie Rod, as the inspection report of offending<br \/>\n     vehicle has neither been produced nor proved during trial.\n<\/p>\n<p>  16.  The only question for consideration in this appeal is &#8211;<br \/>\n     whether  the  Tribunal was justified in  exonerating  the<br \/>\n     Insurance Company from liability of satisfying compensation<br \/>\n     awarded to the claimant and fixing liability on the appellant,<br \/>\n     particularly, in the admitted position that offending vehicle<br \/>\n     was insured with respondent Insurance Company at the relevant<br \/>\n     time?\n<\/p>\n<p>  17.   Our  attention was drawn by Shri Vinay Harit,  learned<br \/>\n     senior counsel for Insurance Company that the claimants have<br \/>\n     themselves averred in their claim petition that they were<br \/>\n     traveling in the said jeep after paying fare, though claimant<br \/>\n     has denied the above fact during his examination before the<br \/>\n     Court.  But claimants cannot be permitted to retract their<br \/>\n     stand  which  they  have taken in their  petition.   Even<br \/>\n     otherwise, the appellant has not paid any extra premium for<br \/>\n     covering risk of passengers traveling in the jeep and in the<br \/>\n     absence of any extra premium for the gratuitous passengers<br \/>\n     traveling in a private jeep, the Insurance Company would not<br \/>\n     be liable for compensation towards any injury or death of<br \/>\n     gratuitous passenger.\n<\/p>\n<p>  18.   In  the matter of United India Insurance Company  Ltd.<br \/>\n     (Supra), the Hon&#8217;ble Supreme Court while dealing with question<br \/>\n     as  to  whether gratuitous passenger would be covered  by<br \/>\n     statutory insurance policy and relying upon the judgment in<br \/>\n     the matter of <a href=\"\/doc\/1761200\/\">New India Assurance Company V. Asha Rani and<br \/>\n     others<\/a>2 in paragraphs 20 and 21 held thus:-\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>          &#8220;20.  The  view  expressed in Satpal  Singh&#8217;s<br \/>\n          case  (supra)  however, has been specifically<br \/>\n          overruled  in  the subsequent judgment  of  a<br \/>\n          Bench  of three judges in <a href=\"\/doc\/1761200\/\">New India Assurance<br \/>\n          Company v. Asha Rani and others<\/a> (2003) 2  SCC\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>          223.   In  the case the discussion  arose  in<br \/>\n          connection  with  carrying  passengers  in  a<br \/>\n          goods vehicle.  This Court after referring to<br \/>\n          the terms of Section 147 of the 1988 Act,  as<br \/>\n          contrasted with Section 95 of the  1939  Act,<br \/>\n          held that the judgment in Satpal Singh&#8217;s case<br \/>\n          (supra) had been incorrectly decided and that<br \/>\n          the   insurer  will  not  be  liable  to  pay<br \/>\n          compensation.  In the concurring judgment  of<br \/>\n          Sinha,  J.,  after contrasting  the  language<br \/>\n          used  in  the 1939 Act with that of the  1988<br \/>\n          Act, it has been observed (vide paras 25  and\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>          27):\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>                &#8220;25.  Section  147 of 1988  Act,  inter<br \/>\n          alia,  prescribes compulsory coverage against<br \/>\n          the   death  of  or  bodily  injury  to   any<br \/>\n          passenger   of   &#8220;public  service   vehicle&#8221;.<br \/>\n          Proviso appended thereto categorically states<br \/>\n          that   compulsory  coverage  in  respect   of<br \/>\n          drivers  and  conductors  of  public  service<br \/>\n          vehicle  and  employees carried  in  a  goods<br \/>\n          vehicle  would  be limited to  the  liability<br \/>\n          under the Workmen&#8217;s Compensation Act. It does<br \/>\n          not   speak  of  any  passenger  in  a  `good<br \/>\n          carriage&#8217;.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>                27.  Furthermore,  sub-clauses  (i)  of<br \/>\n          Clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section  147<br \/>\n          speaks of liability which may be incurred  by<br \/>\n          the owner of a vehicle in respect of death of<br \/>\n          or  bodily injury to any person or damage  to<br \/>\n          any  property of a third party caused  by  or<br \/>\n          arising  out of the use of the vehicle  in  a<br \/>\n          public place, whereas sub-clause (ii) thereof<br \/>\n          deals with liability which may be incurred by<br \/>\n          the  owner of a vehicle against the death  of<br \/>\n          or bodily injury to any passenger of a public<br \/>\n          service vehicle caused by or arising  out  of<br \/>\n          the use of the vehicle in a public place.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>          21.   In  our view, although the observations<br \/>\n          made  in  Asha  Rani&#8217;s case (supra)  were  in<br \/>\n          connection  with  carrying  passengers  in  a<br \/>\n          goods  vehicle,  the same  would  apply  with<br \/>\n          equal  force to gratuitous passengers in  any<br \/>\n          other vehicle also.  Thus, we must uphold the<br \/>\n          contention   of   the  appellant   -insurance<br \/>\n          company that it owed no liability towards the<br \/>\n          injuries  suffered  by the deceased  Rajinder<br \/>\n          Singh  who  was  a  pillion  rider,  as   the<br \/>\n          insurance policy was a statutory policy,  and<br \/>\n          hence  it did not cover the risk of death  of<br \/>\n          or bodily injury to gratuitous passengers.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>  19.   Since  in the instant matter the insurance policy  was<br \/>\n     statutory policy and the appellant did not pay any  extra<br \/>\n     premium to cover risk of any passenger, therefore, the policy<br \/>\n     did not cover risk of death or bodily injury to gratuitous<br \/>\n     passengers.\n<\/p>\n<p>  20.   For  the aforesaid reasons, we are of the opinion that<br \/>\n     there is no substance in the instant appeal, the same deserves<br \/>\n     to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                                  J U D G E<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Chattisgarh High Court Ramchandra Yadav vs Mastan Singh on 7 November, 2008 HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Misc. Appeal No.829 of 1998 1. Ramchandra Yadav 2. Raj Kishore Yadav 3. Awdhesh Yadav &#8230;Petitioners Versus 1. Mastan Singh 2. Divisional Manager &#8230;Respondents ! Shri Rakesh Anthony, counsel for the appellants. ^ Shri Ashish Surana, counsel [&hellip;]<\/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":[12,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-187843","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-chattisgarh-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Ramchandra Yadav vs Mastan Singh on 7 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/ramchandra-yadav-vs-mastan-singh-on-7-november-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ramchandra Yadav vs Mastan Singh on 7 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramchandra-yadav-vs-mastan-singh-on-7-november-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-11-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-06-11T03:12:13+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramchandra-yadav-vs-mastan-singh-on-7-november-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramchandra-yadav-vs-mastan-singh-on-7-november-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ramchandra Yadav vs Mastan Singh on 7 November, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-11-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-11T03:12:13+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramchandra-yadav-vs-mastan-singh-on-7-november-2008\"},\"wordCount\":2004,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Chattisgarh High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramchandra-yadav-vs-mastan-singh-on-7-november-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramchandra-yadav-vs-mastan-singh-on-7-november-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramchandra-yadav-vs-mastan-singh-on-7-november-2008\",\"name\":\"Ramchandra Yadav vs Mastan Singh on 7 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-11-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-11T03:12:13+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramchandra-yadav-vs-mastan-singh-on-7-november-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramchandra-yadav-vs-mastan-singh-on-7-november-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramchandra-yadav-vs-mastan-singh-on-7-november-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ramchandra Yadav vs Mastan Singh on 7 November, 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":"Ramchandra Yadav vs Mastan Singh on 7 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/ramchandra-yadav-vs-mastan-singh-on-7-november-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ramchandra Yadav vs Mastan Singh on 7 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramchandra-yadav-vs-mastan-singh-on-7-november-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-11-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-06-11T03:12:13+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramchandra-yadav-vs-mastan-singh-on-7-november-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramchandra-yadav-vs-mastan-singh-on-7-november-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ramchandra Yadav vs Mastan Singh on 7 November, 2008","datePublished":"2008-11-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-11T03:12:13+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramchandra-yadav-vs-mastan-singh-on-7-november-2008"},"wordCount":2004,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Chattisgarh High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramchandra-yadav-vs-mastan-singh-on-7-november-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramchandra-yadav-vs-mastan-singh-on-7-november-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramchandra-yadav-vs-mastan-singh-on-7-november-2008","name":"Ramchandra Yadav vs Mastan Singh on 7 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-11-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-11T03:12:13+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramchandra-yadav-vs-mastan-singh-on-7-november-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramchandra-yadav-vs-mastan-singh-on-7-november-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramchandra-yadav-vs-mastan-singh-on-7-november-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ramchandra Yadav vs Mastan Singh on 7 November, 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\/187843","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=187843"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/187843\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=187843"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=187843"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=187843"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}