{"id":200856,"date":"2009-04-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-04-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-kunti-devi-vs-silab-ram-on-13-april-2009"},"modified":"2017-12-09T05:32:02","modified_gmt":"2017-12-09T00:02:02","slug":"smt-kunti-devi-vs-silab-ram-on-13-april-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-kunti-devi-vs-silab-ram-on-13-april-2009","title":{"rendered":"Smt.Kunti Devi vs Silab Ram on 13 April, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court<\/div>\n
Smt.Kunti Devi vs Silab Ram on 13 April, 2009<\/div>\n
Author: Kailash Gambhir<\/div>\n
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI\n\n+                           FAO No. 478\/2000\n\n                       Judgment reserved on: 25.1.2008\n%                      Judgment delivered on: 13.4.2009\n\n\n\nSmt. Kunti Devi                   ...... Appellant\n                       Through: Mr. O. P. Mainee, Advocate.\n\n                  versus\n\nSilab Ram                       ..... Respondents\n                       Through: None.\n\n\nCORAM:\nHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR\n\n1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may         No\n be allowed to see the judgment?\n\n2. To be referred to Reporter or not?                No\n\n3. Whether the judgment should be reported\n  in the Digest?                                     No\n\n\nKAILASH GAMBHIR, J.\n<\/pre>\n
1.    The present appeal arises out of the awad dated 17\/7\/2000<\/p>\n
of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whereby the Tribunal<\/p>\n
awarded a sum of Rs. 46,000\/- along with interest @ 12% per<\/p>\n
annum to the claimants.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
FAO NO. 478\/2000                                                  pg. 1\n<\/p>\n
 2.   The brief conspectus of the facts is as follows:<\/p>\n
On 11\/5\/1993 at about 7:00 pm deceased Sh. Chander Mohan<\/p>\n
Joshi had a fatal fall from the bus bearing registration no. DEP<\/p>\n
8084 while in a process of getting down at the Raja Garden, Ring<\/p>\n
Road, when the driver of the bus started the bus all of a sudden<\/p>\n
with a jerk.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
3.   A claim petition was filed on 27\/5\/1993 and an award was<\/p>\n
made on 17\/7\/2000. Aggrieved with the said award enhancement<\/p>\n
is claimed by way of the present appeal.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
4.   Sh. O.P. Mannie, counsel for the appellants has assailed the<\/p>\n
said award on quantum of compensation. Counsel for the<\/p>\n
appellants contended that the tribunal erred in assessing the<\/p>\n
income of the deceased at Rs. 1500 per month whereas after<\/p>\n
looking at the facts and circumstances of the case the tribunal<\/p>\n
should have assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 2500<\/p>\n
per month. The counsel further maintained that the tribunal erred<\/p>\n
in making the deduction to the tune of 1\/3rd of the income of the<\/p>\n
deceased towards personal expenses while the deceased was<\/p>\n
giving entire income for household purposes. The counsel<\/p>\n
FAO NO. 478\/2000                                                    pg. 2
\n submitted that the tribunal has erroneously applied the multiplier<\/p>\n
of 3 while computing compensation whereas according to the<\/p>\n
facts and circumstances of the case multiplier of 8 should have<\/p>\n
been applied. It was urged by the counsel that the tribunal erred<\/p>\n
in   not   considering   future   prospects    while   computing<\/p>\n
compensation as it failed to appreciate that the deceased would<\/p>\n
have earned much more in near future had he not met with the<\/p>\n
accident. The counsel also stated that had the deceased not met<\/p>\n
with his untimely death he would have expanded his business<\/p>\n
and would have been earning much more in the near future. It<\/p>\n
was also alleged by the counsel that the tribunal did not consider<\/p>\n
the fact that due to high rates of inflation the deceased would<\/p>\n
have earned much more in near future and the tribunal also<\/p>\n
failed in appreciating the fact that even the minimum wages are<\/p>\n
revised twice in a year and hence, the deceased would have<\/p>\n
earned much more in his life span. The counsel also raised the<\/p>\n
contention that the rate of interest allowed by the tribunal is on<\/p>\n
the lower side and the tribunal should have allowed simple<\/p>\n
interest @ 18% per annum in place of only 12% per annum. The<\/p>\n
counsel contended that the tribunal has erred in not awarding<\/p>\n
compensation towards loss of love & affection, funeral expenses,<\/p>\n
FAO NO. 478\/2000                                                     pg. 3
\n mental pain and sufferings and the loss of services, which were<\/p>\n
being rendered by the deceased to the appellants. Further, it has<\/p>\n
been averred that the amount awarded towards loss of estate<\/p>\n
and expectation of life is on the lower side.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
5.   Nobody has been appearing for the respondents.<\/p>\n
6.   I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused<\/p>\n
the record.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
7.   The appellants claimants had brought nothing on record to<\/p>\n
prove the income of the deceased. PW1, the father of the<\/p>\n
deceased entered the witness box and deposed that the<\/p>\n
deceased was unmarried and was of 25 years of age at the time<\/p>\n
of the accident. It was also deposed by the said witness that the<\/p>\n
deceased was employed with M\/s. Lumax India Ltd. @ monthly<\/p>\n
salary of Rs. 2500\/-pm. Since, no evidence in support of the said<\/p>\n
averments were brought on record, the tribunal took aid of the<\/p>\n
Minimum wages Act and assessed the income of the deceased as<\/p>\n
per the minimum wages notified for a skilled workman on the<\/p>\n
date of the accident, which was Rs. 1328, which the tribunal took<\/p>\n
as 1500\/- pm. After considering all these factors, I am of the view<\/p>\n
FAO NO. 478\/2000                                                      pg. 4
\n that the tribunal has not erred in assessing the income of the<\/p>\n
deceased at Rs. 1500.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
8. It is no more res integra that mere bald assertions regarding<\/p>\n
the income of the deceased are of no help to the claimants in the<\/p>\n
absence of any reliable evidence being brought on record.<\/p>\n
9.    The thumb rule is that in the absence of clear and cogent<\/p>\n
evidence pertaining to income of the deceased Tribunal should<\/p>\n
determine income of the deceased on the basis of the minimum<\/p>\n
wages notified under the Minimum Wages Act.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
10.   As regards the future prospects I am of the view that there<\/p>\n
is no material on record to award future prospects.<\/p>\n
11.   However, a perusal of the minimum wages notified under<\/p>\n
the Minimum Wages Act show that to neutralize increase in<\/p>\n
inflation and cost of living, minimum wages virtually   increase<\/p>\n
more than double after every 10 years. For instance, minimum<\/p>\n
wages of skilled labourers as on 1.1.1980 was Rs. 320\/- per<\/p>\n
month and same rose to Rs. 1,083\/- per month in the year 1990.<\/p>\n
Meaning thereby, from year 1980 to year 1990, there has been<\/p>\n
an increase of nearly 238% in the minimum wages. Thus, it could<\/p>\n
FAO NO. 478\/2000                                                    pg. 5
\n safely be assumed that income of the deceased would have<\/p>\n
doubled in the next 10 years.\n<\/p>\n
12.   The future increase in income is not akin to the future<\/p>\n
prospects and while taking aid of the Minimum Wages Act for<\/p>\n
assessing the income of the deceased, the increase in minimum<\/p>\n
wages should also be considered. Therefore, the tribunal erred in<\/p>\n
not considering future increase in income of the deceased.<\/p>\n
13.   As regards the contention of the counsel for the appellant<\/p>\n
that the 1\/3rd deduction made by the tribunal are on the higher<\/p>\n
side as the deceased was unmarried at the time of the death and<\/p>\n
was giving the entire salary for the household purposes, I am of<\/p>\n
the view that the tribunal committed no error in this regard. In<\/p>\n
catena of cases the Apex Court has in similar circumstances<\/p>\n
made 1\/3rd deductions. Therefore, I am not inclined to interfere<\/p>\n
with the award on this ground.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
14.   As regards the contention of the counsel for the appellant<\/p>\n
that the tribunal has erred in applying the multiplier of 3 in the<\/p>\n
facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that the tribunal has<\/p>\n
committed error. This case pertains to the year 1993 and at that<\/p>\n
FAO NO. 478\/2000                                                     pg. 6
\n time II schedule to the Motor Vehicles act was not brought on the<\/p>\n
statute books. The said schedule came on the statute book in the<\/p>\n
year 1994 and prior to 1994 the law of the land was as laid down<\/p>\n
by the Hon’ble Apex Court in 1994 SCC (Cri) 335, G.M., Kerala<\/p>\n
SRTC v. Susamma Thomas. In the<\/a> said judgment it was<\/p>\n
observed by the Court that maximum multiplier of 16 could be<\/p>\n
applied by the Courts, which after coming in to force of the II<\/p>\n
schedule has risen to 18. The deceased was of 25 years of age at<\/p>\n
the time of the accident and the father of the deceased was of 68<\/p>\n
years, at that time. In the facts of the present case I am of the<\/p>\n
view that after looking at the age of the claimants and the<\/p>\n
deceased and after taking balanced view considering the<\/p>\n
applicable multiplier under the II Schedule to the M.V. Act, the<\/p>\n
multiplier of 5 should have been applied. Therefore, in the facts<\/p>\n
of the instant case the multiplier of 5 shall be applicable.<\/p>\n
15.   As regards the issue of interest that the rate of interest of<\/p>\n
12% p.a. awarded by the tribunal is on the lower side and the<\/p>\n
same should be enhanced to 15% p.a., I feel that the rate of<\/p>\n
interest awarded by the tribunal is just and fair and requires no\/<\/p>\n
interference. No rate of interest is fixed under Section 171 of the<\/p>\n
FAO NO. 478\/2000                                                      pg. 7
\n Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Interest is compensation for<\/p>\n
forbearance or detention of money and that interest is awarded<\/p>\n
to a party only for being kept out of the money, which ought to<\/p>\n
have been paid to him. Time and again the Hon’ble Supreme<\/p>\n
Court has held that the rate of interest to be awarded should be<\/p>\n
just and fair depending upon the facts and circumstances of the<\/p>\n
case and taking in to consideration relevant factors including<\/p>\n
inflation, policy being adopted by Reserve Bank of India from<\/p>\n
time to time and other economic factors. In the facts and<\/p>\n
circumstances of the case, I do not find any infirmity in the award<\/p>\n
regarding award of interest @ 12% pa by the tribunal and the<\/p>\n
same is not interfered with.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
16.   On the contention regarding that the tribunal has erred in<\/p>\n
not granting compensation towards non-pecuniary damages, I<\/p>\n
feel that the same should have been awarded. In this regard<\/p>\n
compensation towards loss of love and affection is awarded at Rs.<\/p>\n
20,000\/-; compensation towards funeral expenses is awarded at<\/p>\n
Rs. 5,000\/- and compensation towards loss of estate has already<\/p>\n
been awarded by the tribunal at Rs. 10,000\/- and the same<\/p>\n
requires no interference.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
FAO NO. 478\/2000                                                      pg. 8\n<\/p>\n
 17.   As far as the contention pertaining to the awarding of<\/p>\n
amount towards mental pain and sufferings caused to the<\/p>\n
appellants due to the sudden demise of their only son and the<\/p>\n
loss of services, which were being rendered by the deceased to<\/p>\n
the appellants is concerned, I do not feel incline to award any<\/p>\n
amount as compensation towards the same as the same are not<\/p>\n
conventional heads of damages.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
18.   On the basis of the discussion, the income of the deceased<\/p>\n
would come to Rs. 2250 after doubling Rs. 1500 to Rs. 3000 and<\/p>\n
after taking the mean of them. After making 1\/3rd deductions the<\/p>\n
monthly loss of dependency comes to Rs. 1500 and the annual<\/p>\n
loss of dependency comes to Rs. 18000 per annum and after<\/p>\n
applying multiplier of 5 it comes to Rs. 90,000\/-. Thus, the total<\/p>\n
loss of dependency comes to Rs. 90,000\/-. After considering Rs.<\/p>\n
35,000\/-, which is awarded towards non-pecuniary damages, the<\/p>\n
total compensation comes out as Rs. 1,25,000\/-.<\/p>\n
19.   In view of the above discussion, the total compensation is<\/p>\n
enhanced to Rs. 1,25,000\/- from Rs. 46,000\/- with interest @<\/p>\n
7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till<\/p>\n
FAO NO. 478\/2000                                                     pg. 9
\n realisation and the same should be paid to the appellants in<\/p>\n
equal proportion by the respondent insurance company.<\/p>\n
20.   With the above direction, the present appeal is disposed of.<\/p>\n
13.4.2009                              KAILASH GAMBHIR, J\n\n\n\n\nFAO NO. 478\/2000                                                     pg. 10\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court Smt.Kunti Devi vs Silab Ram on 13 April, 2009 Author: Kailash Gambhir * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO No. 478\/2000 Judgment reserved on: 25.1.2008 % Judgment delivered on: 13.4.2009 Smt. Kunti Devi …… Appellant Through: Mr. O. P. Mainee, Advocate. versus Silab Ram ….. 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":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-200856","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSmt.Kunti Devi vs Silab Ram on 13 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-kunti-devi-vs-silab-ram-on-13-april-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Smt.Kunti Devi vs Silab Ram on 13 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-kunti-devi-vs-silab-ram-on-13-april-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-04-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-12-09T00:02:02+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\\\/smt-kunti-devi-vs-silab-ram-on-13-april-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-kunti-devi-vs-silab-ram-on-13-april-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Smt.Kunti Devi vs Silab Ram on 13 April, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-04-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-09T00:02:02+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-kunti-devi-vs-silab-ram-on-13-april-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1712,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Delhi High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-kunti-devi-vs-silab-ram-on-13-april-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-kunti-devi-vs-silab-ram-on-13-april-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-kunti-devi-vs-silab-ram-on-13-april-2009\",\"name\":\"Smt.Kunti Devi vs Silab Ram on 13 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-04-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-09T00:02:02+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-kunti-devi-vs-silab-ram-on-13-april-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-kunti-devi-vs-silab-ram-on-13-april-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-kunti-devi-vs-silab-ram-on-13-april-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Smt.Kunti Devi vs Silab Ram on 13 April, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Smt.Kunti Devi vs Silab Ram on 13 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-kunti-devi-vs-silab-ram-on-13-april-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Smt.Kunti Devi vs Silab Ram on 13 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-kunti-devi-vs-silab-ram-on-13-april-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-04-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-12-09T00:02:02+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\/smt-kunti-devi-vs-silab-ram-on-13-april-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-kunti-devi-vs-silab-ram-on-13-april-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Smt.Kunti Devi vs Silab Ram on 13 April, 2009","datePublished":"2009-04-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-09T00:02:02+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-kunti-devi-vs-silab-ram-on-13-april-2009"},"wordCount":1712,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Delhi High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-kunti-devi-vs-silab-ram-on-13-april-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-kunti-devi-vs-silab-ram-on-13-april-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-kunti-devi-vs-silab-ram-on-13-april-2009","name":"Smt.Kunti Devi vs Silab Ram on 13 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-04-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-09T00:02:02+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-kunti-devi-vs-silab-ram-on-13-april-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-kunti-devi-vs-silab-ram-on-13-april-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-kunti-devi-vs-silab-ram-on-13-april-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Smt.Kunti Devi vs Silab Ram on 13 April, 2009"}]},{"@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\/200856","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=200856"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/200856\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=200856"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=200856"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=200856"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}