{"id":212874,"date":"2009-09-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-09-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naurang-devi-vs-man-singh-on-7-september-2009"},"modified":"2015-07-27T03:27:36","modified_gmt":"2015-07-26T21:57:36","slug":"naurang-devi-vs-man-singh-on-7-september-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naurang-devi-vs-man-singh-on-7-september-2009","title":{"rendered":"Naurang Devi vs Man Singh on 7 September, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court<\/div>\n
Naurang Devi vs Man Singh on 7 September, 2009<\/div>\n
Author: J.R. Midha<\/div>\n
5\n*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI\n\n\n                    +      FAO.No.265\/2000\n\n\n                           Date of Decision: 7th September, 2009\n%\n\n      NAURANG DEVI                           ..... Appellant\n                        Through : Mr. Rajesh Sharma, Adv.\n\n                  versus\n\n      MAN SINGH                              ..... Respondent\n                        Through : Mr. Balram Tyagi, Adv.\n                                  for R - 2.\n                                  Mr. Sameer Nandwani, Adv.\n                                  for R - 3.\nCORAM :-\nTHE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA\n\n1.      Whether Reporters of Local papers may               YES\n        be allowed to see the Judgment?\n\n2.      To be referred to the Reporter or not?              YES\n\n3.      Whether the judgment should be                      YES\n        reported in the Digest?\n\n                        JUDGMENT (Oral)\n<\/pre>\n
1.    The appellant has challenged the award of the learned<\/p>\n
Tribunal whereby compensation of Rs.60,000\/- has been<\/p>\n
awarded to the appellant. The appellant seeks enhancement<\/p>\n
of the award amount.\n<\/p>\n
2.    The accident dated 13th August, 1993 resulted in the<\/p>\n
death of Udayvir. The deceased was survived by his parents<\/p>\n
who filed the claim petition before the learned Tribunal.<\/p>\n
FAO.No.265\/2000                                     Page 1 of 17<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
 3.    The deceased was aged 12 years at the time of the<\/p>\n
accident. The deceased was crossing the road when he was<\/p>\n
hit by offending vehicle bearing No.DBH-7935 resulting in his<\/p>\n
death.\n<\/p>\n
4.    The     learned   Tribunal   awarded   compensation             of<\/p>\n
Rs.60,000\/- without giving any basis on which the award<\/p>\n
amount was computed.\n<\/p>\n
4.    The learned counsel for the appellant refers and relies<\/p>\n
upon the judgment of this Court in the case of National<\/p>\n
Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Farzana, MAC APP. No.13\/2007<\/p>\n
decided on 14th July, 2009 in which compensation of<\/p>\n
Rs.3,75,000\/- has been determined in respect of the death of<\/p>\n
a child aged 7 years, following the judgments of the Hon\u201fble<\/p>\n
Supreme Court and this Court in the cases of Manju Devi<\/p>\n
Vs. Musafir Paswan, VII (2005) SLT 257, Sobhagya<\/p>\n
Devi Vs. Sukhvir Singh, II (2006) ACC 1997, Syam<\/p>\n
Narayan Vs. Kitty Tours & Travels, 2006 ACJ 320, R.K.<\/p>\n
Malik vs. Kiran Pal, III<\/a> (2006) ACC 261, R.K. Malik vs.<\/p>\n
Kiran Pal,<\/a> 2009(8) Scale 451. This Court held as under: –<\/p>\n
      “4. In the case of Manju Devi Vs. Musafir
\n      Paswan, VII (2005) SLT 257, the Hon\u201fble
\n      Supreme Court awarded compensation of
\n      Rs.2,25,000\/- in respect of death of a 13-years
\n      old boy by applying the multiplier of 15 and
\n      taking the notional income of Rs.15,000\/- as per
\n      the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act.
\n      The relevant portion of the said judgment is
\n      reproduced hereunder:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             “As set out in the Second Schedule to
\n             the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for a
\n             boy of 13 years of age, a multiplier of
\nFAO.No.265\/2000                                        Page 2 of 17<\/span>
\n              15 would have to be applied. As per
\n             the Second Schedule, he being a non-
\n             earning person, a sum of Rs.15,000\/-
\n             must be taken as the income. Thus,
\n             the    compensation     comes     to
\n             Rs.2,25,000\/-”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      5.    The case of Sobhagya Devi & Ors. Vs.
\n      Sukhvir Singh & Ors., II (2006) ACC 1997
\n      relates to the death of a 12-year old boy.
\n      Following the decision of the Apex Court in
\n      Manju Devi’s case (supra), the Rajasthan High
\n      Court awarded Rs.2,25,000\/- by applying the
\n      Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      6.    The case of Syam Narayan Vs. Kitty
\n      Tours & Travels, 2006 ACJ 320 relates to the
\n      death of a child aged 5 years. This Court relying
\n      on the judgment of the Apex Court in Manju
\n      Devi’s case (supra) awarded compensation to
\n      the parents by applying the notional income of
\n      Rs.15,000\/- and multiplier of 15 as per the
\n      Second     Schedule    and    further   awarded
\n      Rs.50,000\/- for loss of company of the child as
\n      also pain and suffering by them. The relevant
\n      portion of the said judgment is reproduced
\n      hereunder:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             “3. By and under the award dated
\n             5.12.2003, a sum of Rs.1,00,000\/- has
\n             been awarded to the appellants.
\n             While awarding sum of Rs.1,00,000\/-
\n             to appellants, learned M.A.C.T. has
\n             held that the income of the deceased
\n             child was incapable of assessment or
\n             estimation. Recognising that every
\n             parent has a reasonable expectation
\n             of financial and moral support from
\n             his child, in the absence of any
\n             evidence led, learned M.A.C.T. opined
\n             that the interest of justice requires
\n             that appellants are compensated with
\n             the sum of Rs.1,00,000\/-.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             4.    Had the Tribunal peeped into
\n             the Second Schedule, as per section
\n             163-A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, it
\n             would have dawned on the Tribunal
\n             that vide serial No.6, notional income
\n             for compensation in case of fatal
\n             accidents has been stipulated at
\n             Rs.15,000\/- per annum.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
FAO.No.265\/2000                                       Page 3 of 17<\/span><\/p>\n
              5.   In the decision reported as
\n             Manju Devi V. Musafir Paswan, 2005
\n             ACJ 99 (SC), dealing with the
\n             accidental death of 13 years old boy,
\n             while awarding compensation under
\n             the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Apex
\n             Court took into account the notional
\n             income stipulated in the Second
\n             Schedule    being   Rs.15,000\/-   per
\n             annum.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             6.    In the instant case, baby Chanda
\n             was aged 5 years.          Age of the
\n             appellants as on date of accident was
\n             28 years and 26 years respectively as
\n             recorded in the impugned award.
\n             Applying a multiplier of 15 as set out
\n             in Second Schedule which refers to
\n             the said multiplier, where age of the
\n             victim is upto 15 years, compensation
\n             determinable comes to Rs.15,000 x
\n             15 = Rs.2,25,000\/-.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             7.    The    learned     Tribunal  has
\n             awarded Rs.1,00,000\/- towards loss of
\n             expectation of financial and moral
\n             support as also loss of company of the
\n             child, mental agony, etc. I have found
\n             that the parents are entitled to
\n             compensation      in   the    sum   of
\n             Rs.2,25,000\/- on account of loss of
\n             financial support from the deceased
\n             child. I award a sum of Rs.50,000\/- on
\n             account of loss of company of the
\n             child as also pain and suffering
\n             suffered by them as a result of the
\n             untimely death of baby Chanda.
\n             Appeal accordingly stands disposed of
\n             enhancing the compensation to
\n             Rs.2,75,000\/-.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      7.    In the case of R.K. Malik vs. Kiran Pal, III<\/a>
\n      (2006) ACC 261, 22 children died in an accident
\n      of a school bus which fell in river Yamuna. This
\n      Court held the Second Schedule of the Motor
\n      Vehicles Act to be the appropriate method for
\n      computing the compensation. With respect to
\n      the non-pecuniary damages, the Court observed
\n      that loss of dependency of life and pain and
\n      suffering on that account, generally speaking is
\n      same and uniform to all regardless of status
\n      unless there is a specific case made out for
\nFAO.No.265\/2000                                       Page 4 of 17<\/span>
\n       deviation.   This Court awarded Rs.75,000\/-
\n      towards non-pecuniary compensation.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      8.    The aforesaid judgment of this Court was
\n      challenged before the Hon\u201fble Supreme Court
\n      and which has been decided recently on 15th
\n      May, 2009 and is reported as R.K. Malik vs.
\n      Kiran Pal,<\/a> 2009(8) Scale 451. The Hon\u201fble
\n      Supreme Court held that the claimants are also
\n      entitled  to   compensation towards future
\n      prospects. The Hon\u201fble Supreme Court held that
\n      the claimants are entitled to compensate
\n      towards future prospects and granted further
\n      compensation of Rs.75,000\/- towards future
\n      prospects of the children. The findings of the
\n      Hon\u201fble Supreme Court are as under:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             “19. The other issue is with regard to
\n             non-pecuniary compensation to the
\n             appellants-dependents on the loss of
\n             human     life,  loss   of   company,
\n             companionship, happiness, pain and
\n             suffering, loss of expectation of life
\n             etc.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             20. In the Halsbury’s Laws of
\n             England, 4th Edition, Vol. 12, page
\n             446, it has been stated with regard to
\n             non-pecuniary loss as follows:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                  “Non-pecuniary         loss:     the
\n                  pattern. Damages awarded for
\n                  pain and suffering and loss of
\n                  amenity          constitute        a
\n                  conventional sum which is taken
\n                  to be the sum which society
\n                  deems     fair,    fairness   being
\n                  interpreted by the Courts in the
\n                  light of previous decisions. Thus
\n                  there has been evolved a set of
\n                  conventional              principles
\n                  providing a provisional guide to
\n                  the comparative severity of
\n                  different injuries, and indicating
\n                  a bracket of damages into which
\n                  a particular injury will currently
\n                  fall. The particular circumstance
\n                  of the plaintiff, including his age
\n                  and any unusual deprivation he
\n                  may suffer, is reflected in the
\n                  actual amount of the award. The
\nFAO.No.265\/2000                                          Page 5 of 17<\/span>
\n                   fall in the value of money leads
\n                  to a continuing reassessment of
\n                  these awards and to periodic
\n                  reassessments of damages at
\n                  certain key points in the pattern
\n                  where the disability is readily
\n                  identifiable and not subject to
\n                  large variations in individual
\n                  cases.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             21. In the case of Ward v. James
\n             (1965) I All E R 563, it was observed:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                  “Although you cannot give a
\n                  man so gravely injured much for
\n                  his `lost years’, you can,
\n                  however, compensate him for
\n                  his loss during his shortened,
\n                  span,    that    is,  during    his
\n                  expected `years of survival’. You
\n                  can compensate him for his loss
\n                  of earnings during that time, and
\n                  for the cost of treatment,
\n                  nursing and attendance. But
\n                  how can you compensate him
\n                  for being rendered a helpless
\n                  invalid? He may, owing to brain
\n                  injury, be rendered unconscious
\n                  for the rest of his days, or, owing
\n                  to a back injury, be unable to
\n                  rise from his bed. He has lost
\n                  everything that makes life
\n                  worthwhile. Money is no good to
\n                  him. Yet Judges and juries have
\n                  to do the best they can and give
\n                  him what they think is fair. No
\n                  wonder they find it well nigh
\n                  insoluble. They are being asked
\n                  to calculable. The figure is
\n                  bound to be for the most part a
\n                  conventional sum. The Judges
\n                  have worked out a pattern, and
\n                  they keep it in line with the
\n                  changes in the value of money.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             22. The Supreme Court in the case of
\n             R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India)
\n             (P) Ltd.,<\/a> (1995) 1 SCC 551, at page
\n             556, has observed as follows in
\n             para 9:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
FAO.No.265\/2000                                         Page 6 of 17<\/span><\/p>\n
                   “9. Broadly speaking while fixing
\n                  an amount of compensation
\n                  payable to a victim of an
\n                  accident, the damages have to
\n                  be assessed separately as
\n                  pecuniary damages and special
\n                  damages. Pecuniary damages
\n                  are those which the victim has
\n                  actually incurred and which are
\n                  capable of being calculated in
\n                  terms of money; whereas non-
\n                  pecuniary damages are those
\n                  which are incapable of being
\n                  assessed        by       arithmetical
\n                  calculations.      In     order    to
\n                  appreciate        two        concepts
\n                  pecuniary damages may include
\n                  expenses      incurred       by   the
\n                  claimant:          (i)        medical
\n                  attendance; (ii) loss of earning
\n                  of profit up to the date of trial;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                  (iii) other material loss. So far
\n                  non-pecuniary        damages      are
\n                  concerned, they may include (i)
\n                  damages       for      mental    and
\n                  physical     shock,      pain    and
\n                  suffering, already suffered or
\n                  likely to be suffered in future; (ii)
\n                  damages to compensate for the
\n                  loss of amenities of life which
\n                  may include a variety of matters
\n                  i.e. on account of injury the
\n                  claimant may not be able to
\n                  walk, run or sit; (iii) damages for
\n                  the loss of expectation of life,
\n                  i.e., on account of injury the
\n                  normal longevity of the person
\n                  concerned is shortened; (iv)
\n                  inconvenience,              hardship,
\n                  discomfort,         disappointment,
\n                  frustration and mental stress in
\n                  life.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                  In this case, the Court awarded
\n                  non-pecuniary special damages
\n                  of Rs. 3, 00,000\/- to the
\n                  claimants.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             23. In Common Cause, A Registered
\n             Society v. Union of India<\/a> (1999) 6 SCC
\n             667 @ page 738, it was observed:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
FAO.No.265\/2000                                           Page 7 of 17<\/span><\/p>\n
                   “128. The object of an award of
\n                  damages is to give the plaintiff
\n                  compensation for damage, loss
\n                  or injury he has suffered. The
\n                  elements of damage recognised
\n                  by law are divisible into two
\n                  main groups: pecuniary and
\n                  non-pecuniary.      While     the
\n                  pecuniary loss is capable of
\n                  being arithmetically worked out,
\n                  the non-pecuniary loss is not so
\n                  calculable. Non-pecuniary loss is
\n                  compensated in terms of money,
\n                  not    as     a   substitute   or
\n                  replacement for other money,
\n                  but as a substitute, what
\n                  McGregor says, is generally
\n                  more important than money: it
\n                  is the best that a court can do.
\n                  In Mediana, Re Lord Halsbury,
\n                  L.C. observed as under: “How is
\n                  anybody to measure pain and
\n                  suffering in moneys counted?
\n                  Nobody can suggest that you
\n                  can by arithmetical calculation
\n                  establish what is the exact sum
\n                  of money which would represent
\n                  such a thing as the pain and
\n                  suffering which a person has
\n                  undergone by reason of an
\n                  accident…. But nevertheless the
\n                  law recognises that as a topic
\n                  upon which damages may be
\n                  given.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             24. It is extremely difficult to quantify
\n             the non pecuniary compensation as it
\n             is to a great extent based upon the
\n             sentiments and emotions. But, the
\n             same could not be a ground for non-
\n             payment of any amount whatsoever
\n             by stating that it is difficult to quantify
\n             and pinpoint the exact amount
\n             payable with mathematical accuracy.
\n             Human life cannot be measured only
\n             in terms of loss of earning or
\n             monetary losses alone. There are
\n             emotional attachments involved and
\n             loss of a child can have a devastating
\n             effect on the family which can be
\n             easily visualized and understood.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
FAO.No.265\/2000                                            Page 8 of 17<\/span><\/p>\n
              Perhaps, the only mechanism known
\n             to law in this kind of situation is to
\n             compensate a person who has
\n             suffered    non-pecuniary     loss    or
\n             damage as a consequence of the
\n             wrong done to him by way of
\n             damages\/monetary         compensation.
\n             Undoubtedly, when a victim of a
\n             wrong suffers injuries he is entitled to
\n             compensation including compensation
\n             for the prospective life, pain and
\n             suffering, happiness etc., which is
\n             sometimes          described          as
\n             compensation paid for “loss of
\n             expectation of life”. This head of
\n             compensation need not be restricted
\n             to a case where the injured person
\n             himself initiates action but is equally
\n             admissible if his dependant brings
\n             about the action.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             25. That being the position, the
\n             crucial problem arises with regard to
\n             the      quantification    of       such
\n             compensation. The injury inflicted by
\n             deprivation of the life of a child is
\n             extremely difficult to quantify. In view
\n             of the uncertainties and contingencies
\n             of human life, what would be an
\n             appropriate figure, an adequate
\n             solatium is difficult to specify. The
\n             courts have therefore used the
\n             expression “standard compensation”
\n             and “conventional amount\/sum” to
\n             get over the difficulty that arises in
\n             quantifying a figure as the same
\n             ensures consistency and uniformity in
\n             awarding compensations.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             26. While quantifying and arriving at a
\n             figure for “loss of expectation of life”,
\n             the Court have to keep in mind that
\n             this figure is not to be calculated for
\n             the prospective loss or further
\n             pecuniary benefits that has been
\n             awarded under another head i.e.
\n             pecuniary loss. The compensation
\n             payable under this head is for loss of
\n             life and not loss of future pecuniary
\n             prospects.      Under     this    head,
\n             compensation is paid for termination
\nFAO.No.265\/2000                                          Page 9 of 17<\/span>
\n              of life, which results in constant pain
\n             and suffering. This pain and suffering
\n             does not depend upon the financial
\n             position of the victim or the claimant
\n             but rather on the capacity and the
\n             ability of the deceased to provide
\n             happiness to the claimant. This
\n             compensation is paid for loss of
\n             prospective happiness which the
\n             claimant\/victim would have enjoyed
\n             had the child not been died at the
\n             tender age.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             27. In the case of Lata Wadhwa
\n             (supra), wherein several persons
\n             including children lost their lives in a
\n             fire accident, the Court awarded
\n             substantial amount as compensation.
\n             No doubt, the Court noticed that the
\n             children who lost their lives were
\n             studying in an expensive school, had
\n             bright prospects and belonged to
\n             upper middle class, yet it cannot be
\n             said    that    higher    compensation
\n             awarded was for deprivation of life
\n             and the pain and suffering undergone
\n             on loss of life due to financial status.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             The          term         “conventional
\n             compensation” used in the said case
\n             has been used for non pecuniary
\n             compensation payable on account of
\n             pain and suffering as a result of
\n             death. The Court in the said case
\n             referred to Rs. 50, 000\/-             as
\n             conventional figure. The reason was
\n             loss of expectancy of life and pain and
\n             suffering on that account which was
\n             common and uniform to all regardless
\n             of the status. Unless there is a specific
\n             case departing from the conventional
\n             formula,         non-         pecuniary
\n             compensation should not be fixed on
\n             basis of economic wealth and
\n             background.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             28. In Lata Wadhawa case (supra),
\n             wherein the accident took place on
\n             03.03.1989, the multiplier method
\n             was referred to and adopted with
\n             approval. In cases of children between
\n             5 to 10 years of age, compensation of
\nFAO.No.265\/2000                                      Page 10 of 17<\/span>
\n              Rs. 1.50 lakhs was awarded towards
\n             pecuniary    compensation      and   in
\n             addition a sum of Rs. 50,000\/- was
\n             awarded      towards     `conventional
\n             compensation”. In the case of children
\n             between 10 to 18 years compensation
\n             of Rs. 4.10 lakhs was awarded
\n             including                “conventional
\n             compensation”. While doing so the
\n             Supreme Court held that contribution
\n             of each child towards family should be
\n             taken as Rs. 24,000\/- per annum
\n             instead of Rs. 12, 000\/- per annum as
\n             recommended        by     Justice    Y.
\n             V.Chandrachud Committee. This was
\n             in view of the fact that the company
\n             in question had an un-written rule
\n             that every employee can get one of
\n             his children employed in the said
\n             company.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             29. In the case of M.S. Grewal v. Deep
\n             Chand Sood MANU\/SC\/0506\/2001,<\/a>
\n             wherein 14 students of a public school
\n             got drowned in a river due to
\n             negligence of the teachers. On the
\n             question       of     quantum       of
\n             compensation, this Court accepted
\n             that the multiplier method was
\n             normally to be adopted as a method
\n             for assigning value of future annual
\n             dependency. It was emphasized that
\n             the Court must ensure that a just
\n             compensation was awarded.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             30.    In   Grewal    case     (supra),
\n             compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs was
\n             awarded to the claimants and the
\n             same was held to be justified. Learned
\n             Counsel for the respondent No. 3,
\n             however, pointed out that in the said
\n             case the Supreme Court had noticed
\n             that the students belonged to an
\n             affluent school as was apparent from
\n             the fee structure and therefore the
\n             compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs as
\n             awarded by the High Court was not
\n             found to be excessive. It is no doubt
\n             true that the Supreme Court in the
\n             said case noticed that the students
\n             belonged to an upper middle class
\nFAO.No.265\/2000                                    Page 11 of 17<\/span>
\n              background but the basis and the
\n             principle on which the compensation
\n             was awarded in that case would
\n             equally apply to the present case.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             31. A forceful submission has been
\n             made by the learned Counsels
\n             appearing       for    the     claimants-
\n             appellants that both the Tribunal as
\n             well as the High Court failed to
\n             consider the claims of the appellants
\n             with regard to the future prospects of
\n             the children. It has been submitted
\n             that the evidence with regard to the
\n             same has been ignored by the Courts
\n             below. On perusal of the evidence on
\n             record, we find merit in such
\n             submission that the Courts below
\n             have overlooked that aspect of the
\n             matter while granting compensation.
\n             It is well settled legal principle that in
\n             addition to awarding compensation
\n             for pecuniary losses, compensation
\n             must also be granted with regard to
\n             the future prospects of the children. It
\n             is incumbent upon the Courts to
\n             consider the said aspect while
\n             awarding compensation. Reliance in
\n             this regard may be placed on the
\n             decisions rendered by this Court in
\n             General Manager, Kerala S. R. T. C. v.
\n             Susamma Thomas<\/a>(1994) 2 SCC 176;
\n             Sarla Dixit v. Balwant Yadav<\/a> (1996) 3
\n             SCC 179; and Lata Wadhwa case
\n             (supra).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             32. In view of discussion made
\n             hereinbefore, it is quite clear the
\n             claim with regard to future prospect
\n             should have been be addressed by
\n             the courts below. While considering
\n             such claims, child’s performance in
\n             school, the reputation of the school
\n             etc.    might    be    taken      into
\n             consideration. In the present case,
\n             records shows that the children were
\n             good in studies and studying in a
\n             reasonably good school. Naturally,
\n             their future prospect would be
\n             presumed to be good and bright.
\n             Since they were children, there is no
\nFAO.No.265\/2000                                       Page 12 of 17<\/span>
\n              yardstick to measure the loss of
\n             future prospects of these children. But
\n             as    already   noted,     they   were
\n             performing well in studies, natural
\n             consequence supposed to be a bright
\n             future. In the case of Lata Wadhwa
\n             (supra) and M. S. Grewal (supra), the
\n             Supreme Court recognised such
\n             future prospect as basis and factor to
\n             be considered. Therefore, denying
\n             compensation        towards      future
\n             prospects seems to be unjustified.
\n             Keeping this in background, facts and
\n             circumstances of the present case,
\n             and following the decision in Lata
\n             Wadhwa (supra) and M. S. Grewal
\n             (supra), we deem it appropriate to
\n             grant compensation of Rs. 75,000\/-
\n             (which is roughly half of the amount
\n             given on account of pecuniary
\n             damages) as compensation for the
\n             future prospects of the children, to be
\n             paid to each claimant within one
\n             month of the date of this decision. We
\n             would like to clarify that this amount
\n             i.e. Rs. 75,000\/- is over and above
\n             what has been awarded by the High
\n             Court.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             33. Besides, the Courts have been
\n             awarding compensation for pain and
\n             suffering and towards non-pecuniary
\n             damages. Reference in this regard
\n             can be made to R. D. Hattangadi case
\n             (supra).      Further,     the      said
\n             compensation must be just and
\n             reasonable. This Court has observed
\n             as follows in State of Haryana v. Jasbir
\n             Kaur<\/a> (2003) 7 SCC 484:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                  “7. It has to be kept in view that
\n                  the Tribunal constituted under
\n                  the Act as provided in Section
\n                  168 is required to make an
\n                  award determining the amount
\n                  of compensation which is to be
\n                  in the real sense “damages”
\n                  which in turn appears to it to be
\n                  “just and reasonable”. It has to
\n                  be     borne    in   mind     that
\n                  compensation for loss of limbs
\nFAO.No.265\/2000                                        Page 13 of 17<\/span>
\n                   or life can hardly be weighed in
\n                  golden scales. But at the same
\n                  time it has to be borne in mind
\n                  that the compensation is not
\n                  expected to be a windfall for the
\n                  victim.    Statutory       provisions
\n                  clearly    indicate       that    the
\n                  compensation must be “just”
\n                  and it cannot be a bonanza; not
\n                  a source of profit; but the same
\n                  should not be a pittance. The
\n                  courts and tribunals have a duty
\n                  to weigh the various factors and
\n                  quantify      the       amount     of
\n                  compensation, which should be
\n                  just. What would be “just”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                  compensation         is    a    vexed
\n                  question. There can be no
\n                  golden rule applicable to all
\n                  cases for measuring the value of
\n                  human life or a limb. Measure of
\n                  damages cannot be arrived at
\n                  by      precise         mathematical
\n                  calculations. It would depend
\n                  upon the particular facts and
\n                  circumstances, and attending
\n                  peculiar or special features, if
\n                  any. Every method or mode
\n                  adopted          for        assessing
\n                  compensation          has    to    be
\n                  considered in the background of
\n                  “just” compensation which is the
\n                  pivotal consideration. Though by
\n                  use of the expression “which
\n                  appears to it to be just” a wide
\n                  discretion is vested in the
\n                  Tribunal, the determination has
\n                  to be rational, to be done by a
\n                  judicious approach and not the
\n                  outcome of whims, wild guesses
\n                  and        arbitrariness.         The
\n                  expression        “just”     denotes
\n                  equitability,       fairness      and
\n                  reasonableness,          and     non-
\n                  arbitrary. If it is not so it cannot
\n                  be just.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             34. So far as the pecuniary damage is
\n             concerned we are of the considered
\n             view both the Tribunal as well as the
\n             High    Court    has   awarded    the
\nFAO.No.265\/2000                                           Page 14 of 17<\/span>
\n              compensation on the basis of Second
\n             Schedule and relevant multiplier
\n             under the Act. However, we may
\n             notice here that as far as non-
\n             pecuniary damages are concerned,
\n             the Tribunal does not award any
\n             compensation under the head of non-
\n             pecuniary damages. However, in
\n             appeal the High Court has elaborately
\n             discussed this aspect of the matter
\n             and has awarded non-pecuniary
\n             damages of Rs. 75,000. Needless to
\n             say, pecuniary damages seeks to
\n             compensate those losses which can
\n             be translated into money terms like
\n             loss    of   earnings,    actual     and
\n             prospective earning and other out of
\n             pocket expenses. In contrast, non-
\n             pecuniary damages include such
\n             immeasurable elements as pain and
\n             suffering and loss of amenity and
\n             enjoyment of life. In this context, it
\n             becomes duty of the court to award
\n             just compensation for non-pecuniary
\n             loss. As already noted it is difficult to
\n             quantify        the      non-pecuniary
\n             compensation,       nevertheless,     the
\n             endeavour of the Court must be to
\n             provide a just, fair and reasonable
\n             amount as compensation keeping in
\n             view     all    relevant   facts     and
\n             circumstances into consideration. We
\n             have noticed that the High Court in
\n             present case has enhanced the
\n             compensation in this category by Rs.
\n             75, 000\/- in all connected appeals. We
\n             do not find any infirmity in that
\n             regard.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      9.   The learned Tribunal was in error in taking
\n      the notional income to be Rs.22,500\/- per
\n      annum. Following the aforesaid judgments, the
\n      notional income of the deceased is taken to be
\n      Rs.15,000\/- per annum and applying the
\n      multiplier of 15, the claimants are entitled to loss
\n      of dependency of Rs.2,25,000\/-. The claimants
\n      are also entitled to compensation of Rs.75,000\/-
\n      towards the future prospects in terms of the
\n      judgment of the Hon\u201fble Supreme Court in R.K.
\n      Malik Vs. Kiran Pal, 2009 (8) Scale 451. The
\n      claimants are also entitled to a further sum of
\nFAO.No.265\/2000                                      Page 15 of 17<\/span>
\n       Rs.75,000\/- towards non-pecuniary damages in
\n      terms of the judgment of this Court in the case of
\n      R.K. Malik Vs. Kiran Pal, III (2006) ACC 261
\n      upheld by the Hon\u201fble Supreme Court.          The
\n      claimants are entitled to total compensation of
\n      Rs.3,75,000\/- (Rs.2,25,000\/- + Rs.75,000\/- +
\n      Rs.75,000\/-).”<\/p>\n
5.    The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the<\/p>\n
principles of law laid down in the above cases are applicable<\/p>\n
to the present case.       In the case of National Insurance<\/p>\n
Company Ltd. Vs. Farzana (Supra), it has been held that<\/p>\n
the parents of the child aged 7 are entitled to pecuniary<\/p>\n
compensation of Rs.2,25,000\/- according to the Second<\/p>\n
Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act. Further Rs.75,000\/- has<\/p>\n
been awarded as non-pecuniary damages following the<\/p>\n
judgment of this Court in the case of R.K. Malik vs. Kiran<\/p>\n
Pal, III<\/a> (2006) ACC 261. Rs.75,000\/- has been awarded<\/p>\n
towards future prospects following the judgment of the<\/p>\n
Hon\u201fble Supreme Court in the case of R.K. Malik vs. Kiran<\/p>\n
Pal,<\/a> 2009(8) Scale 451.\n<\/p>\n
6.    This    case   is   squarely   covered   by   the   aforesaid<\/p>\n
judgment of this Court which related to the case of 7 year old<\/p>\n
child whereas the deceased in the present case was 12 years<\/p>\n
old. Following the aforesaid judgment, Rs.2,25,000\/- is<\/p>\n
awarded towards pecuniary damages following the Second<\/p>\n
Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, Rs.75,000\/- is awarded<\/p>\n
towards non-pecuniary damages and Rs.75,000\/- is awarded<\/p>\n
towards future prospects. The total compensation awarded<\/p>\n
is Rs.3,75,000\/-.\n<\/p>\n
FAO.No.265\/2000                                       Page 16 of 17<\/span><\/p>\n
 7.    The appeal is allowed and the award amount is<\/p>\n
enhanced from Rs.60,000\/- to Rs.3,75,000\/-.           The learned<\/p>\n
Tribunal has awarded the interest @12% per annum which is<\/p>\n
not disturbed in respect of the original award amount of<\/p>\n
Rs.60,000\/-. However, on the enhanced award amount, the<\/p>\n
appellants shall be entitled to the interest @7.5% per annum<\/p>\n
from the date of filing of the petition till date of realization.<\/p>\n
8.    Respondent No.3 is directed to deposit the enhanced<\/p>\n
award amount along with interest with the learned Tribunal<\/p>\n
within 30 days. Upon the said amount being deposited, the<\/p>\n
learned Tribunal shall release a sum of Rs.50,000\/- to each of<\/p>\n
the two appellants. The remaining amount be kept in fixed<\/p>\n
deposit in the joint names of the appellants for a period of<\/p>\n
five years on which monthly interest shall be paid to them<\/p>\n
but no loan, advance or withdrawal be permitted without the<\/p>\n
permission of the learned Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n
9.    Copy of this order be given \u201eDasti\u201f to learned counsel<\/p>\n
for the parties under the signature of Court Master.<\/p>\n
                                                    J.R. MIDHA, J<\/p>\n
      SEPTEMBER 07, 2009
\n      mk<\/p>\n
FAO.No.265\/2000                                       Page 17 of 17<\/span>\n <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court Naurang Devi vs Man Singh on 7 September, 2009 Author: J.R. Midha 5 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO.No.265\/2000 Date of Decision: 7th September, 2009 % NAURANG DEVI ….. Appellant Through : Mr. Rajesh Sharma, Adv. versus MAN SINGH ….. Respondent Through : Mr. Balram Tyagi, Adv. […]<\/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-212874","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nNaurang Devi vs Man Singh on 7 September, 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\/naurang-devi-vs-man-singh-on-7-september-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Naurang Devi vs Man Singh on 7 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naurang-devi-vs-man-singh-on-7-september-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=\"2009-09-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-07-26T21:57:36+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=\"22 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/naurang-devi-vs-man-singh-on-7-september-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/naurang-devi-vs-man-singh-on-7-september-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Naurang Devi vs Man Singh on 7 September, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-09-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-26T21:57:36+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/naurang-devi-vs-man-singh-on-7-september-2009\"},\"wordCount\":4331,\"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\\\/naurang-devi-vs-man-singh-on-7-september-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/naurang-devi-vs-man-singh-on-7-september-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/naurang-devi-vs-man-singh-on-7-september-2009\",\"name\":\"Naurang Devi vs Man Singh on 7 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-09-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-26T21:57:36+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/naurang-devi-vs-man-singh-on-7-september-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/naurang-devi-vs-man-singh-on-7-september-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/naurang-devi-vs-man-singh-on-7-september-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Naurang Devi vs Man Singh on 7 September, 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":"Naurang Devi vs Man Singh on 7 September, 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\/naurang-devi-vs-man-singh-on-7-september-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Naurang Devi vs Man Singh on 7 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naurang-devi-vs-man-singh-on-7-september-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-09-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-07-26T21:57:36+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":"22 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naurang-devi-vs-man-singh-on-7-september-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naurang-devi-vs-man-singh-on-7-september-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Naurang Devi vs Man Singh on 7 September, 2009","datePublished":"2009-09-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-26T21:57:36+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naurang-devi-vs-man-singh-on-7-september-2009"},"wordCount":4331,"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\/naurang-devi-vs-man-singh-on-7-september-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naurang-devi-vs-man-singh-on-7-september-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naurang-devi-vs-man-singh-on-7-september-2009","name":"Naurang Devi vs Man Singh on 7 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-09-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-26T21:57:36+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naurang-devi-vs-man-singh-on-7-september-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naurang-devi-vs-man-singh-on-7-september-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naurang-devi-vs-man-singh-on-7-september-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Naurang Devi vs Man Singh on 7 September, 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\/212874","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=212874"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/212874\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=212874"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=212874"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=212874"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}