{"id":219584,"date":"2008-10-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-10-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-vs-fataji-on-22-october-2008"},"modified":"2018-09-13T19:17:41","modified_gmt":"2018-09-13T13:47:41","slug":"new-vs-fataji-on-22-october-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-vs-fataji-on-22-october-2008","title":{"rendered":"New vs Fataji on 22 October, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
New vs Fataji on 22 October, 2008<\/div>\n
Author: H.K.Rathod,&Nbsp;<\/div>\n
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nFA\/5085\/2008\t 8\/ 8\tORDER \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nFIRST\nAPPEAL No. 5085 of 2008\n \n\nWith\n\n\n \n\nCIVIL\nAPPLICATION No. 12471 of 2008\n \n\n \n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\nNEW\nINDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD - Appellant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nFATAJI\nKALAJI FULAJI ZALA & 3 - Defendant(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nRAJNI H MEHTA for\nAppellant(s) : 1, \nNone for Defendant(s) : 1 -\n4. \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE H.K.RATHOD\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 22\/10\/2008 \n\n \n\n \n \nORAL\nORDER<\/pre>\n
1.\tHeard
\nlearned advocate Mr.S.B.Parikh for learned advocate Mr.R.H.Mehta on
\nbehalf of appellant ?  Assurance Co.\n<\/p>\n
2.\tIn
\nthe present appeal, the appellant  – Assurance Co. has challenged the
\naward passed by MAC Tribunal (Aux.), FTC No.8, Nadiad in MACP No.1757
\nof 1995, dated 22.5.2008 whereby the claims Tribunal has awarded
\nRs.1,95,000\/- with 9% interest in favour respondents claimants.\n<\/p>\n
3.\tLearned
\nadvocate Mr.Parikh raised contention before this Court that claims
\nTribunal has committed gross error in awarding Rs.1,95,000\/- with 9%
\ninterest because of the death of minor Laxmiben, who was aged about 8
\nyears. He also submitted that deceased was not a earning person at
\nthe time of accident. Therefore, father and mother of the deceased
\nare not depending upon the income of the minor and therefore, they
\nare not entitled any amount of compensation and in such
\ncircumstances, the claims Tribunal has committed gross error in
\nawarding the compensation in favour of parents. He relied upon the
\ndecision of this Court reported in 23 (1) GLR 785 and submitted that
\nin such cases, 1\/3rd dependency would be available and not
\n2\/3rd. He also relied upon another decision reported in 26
\n(2) GLR 1315. He also submitted that claims Tribunal has committed
\ngross error in deducting 1\/3rd amount and awarding 2\/3rd
\ndependency which is contrary to the decision of the Apex Court
\nreported in 1999 ACJ 1400. He also submitted that multiplier of 15
\nwhich was applied is on higher side and looking to the age of
\ndeceased minor, multiplier of 10 is reasonable. He also submitted
\nthat claims Tribunal has committed gross error in awarding
\nRs.1,80,000\/- under head of dependency benefit, Rs.10,000\/- under
\nhead of loss of expectation of life, Rs.5000\/- under head of funeral
\nexpenses and in all,  Rs.1,95,000\/- has been awarded by claims
\nTribunal with 9% interest against the claim of Rs.1,50,000\/- is also
\nan error committed by claims Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n
4.\tI
\nhave considered the submissions made by learned advocate Mr.Parikh
\nand also perused the award in question. I have  appreciated the
\ncontention that minor is not the earning member and parents are not
\ndependent and therefore, in case of death of minor, the parents are
\nnot entitled any compensation from the Insurance Co. because they are
\nnot dependent has required compensation from the Insurance Co.
\nTherefore, in case of death of child \/ minor, no compensation can be
\npaid to parents by the Insurance Co. and claims Tribunal should have
\nto dismiss such claim petition. However, he submitted that dependency
\nshould be considered 1\/3rd in stead of 2\/3rd.\n<\/p>\n
I have considered the submissions made by learned advocate Mr.Parikh
\nand also perused the award passed by claims Tribunal. On 25.10.1995,
\nat about 10.00 am., the daughter of claimant ?  Laxmiben died in the
\naccident because of rash and negligent driving of opponent No.1.
\nThereafter, claim petition was filed claiming Rs.1,50,000\/- by the
\nclaimants. The Insurance Co. has filed its written statement vide
\nExh.30 and thereafter, issues have been framed by the claims Tribunal
\nvide Exh.35. Thereafter, the claims Tribunal has examined Fataji
\nKalaji Jhala vide Exh.38 and thereafter, considering the complaint
\nExh.44, the claims Tribunal has come to conclusion that there was
\nrash and negligent driving of opponent No.1. Thereafter, the claims
\nTribunal has considered the quantum in issue No.2 in Para.7 of the
\naward and after considering the affidavit Exh.38 of the parents, the
\nclaims Tribunal has come to conclusion that minor Laxmi was not the
\nearning member, therefore, notional income of Rs.1500\/- is required
\nto be taken in account and 1\/3rd has been deducted and
\ntherefore, Rs.1000\/- is awarded for dependency and looking to the age
\nof minor as 8 years, multiplier of 15 was applied and accordingly, it
\ncomes to Rs.1,80,000\/-. The claims Tribunal has also considered that
\nminor deceased was having three brothers and they have lost their
\nsister and therefore, for expectation of life, Rs.10,000\/- has been
\nawarded and Rs.5000\/- for funeral expenses and in all, Rs.1,95,000\/-
\nhas been awarded as compensation by the claims Tribunal to the
\nrespondents claimants.\n<\/p>\n
5.\tThe
\ncontention which has been raised by the Insurance Co. that claimant
\nhas filed the claim petition for Rs.1,50,000\/-, therefore, the claims
\nTribunal ought not to have awarded more compensation than what was
\nclaimed. However, the claims Tribunal has considered the decision of
\nApex Court in case of Nagappa v. Gurudayal and Others<\/a> reported in
\n2003 (1) SRJ 580. Apart from that, there is no provision is made in
\nthe MV Act  which restricts the power of claims Tribunal of not
\nawarding more compensation than claimed. After all, the claims
\nTribunal has to consider just compensation is to be awarded. Apart
\nfrom that, claim made by claimant under Section 168 of the MV Act.
\nTherefore, according to my opinion, the contentions raised by learned
\nadvocate Mr.Parikh cannot be accepted in light of the decision of
\nApex Court in case of New India Assurance Co. ltd. v. Satender and
\nOrs. Reported in 2006 (11) Scale 589 wherein the Apex Court has
\nawarded Rs.1,80,000\/- applying the principles enunciated in case of
\nState of Haryana v. Jasbir Kaur and Ors.,<\/a> reported in  (2003) 7 SCC\n<\/p>\n
484. In the aforesaid decision, the Apex Court has discussed the law
\nlaid down in case of Jasbir Kaur (Supra) and  Lata Wadhwa v. State of
\nBihar<\/a> reported in (2001) 8 SCC 197 and observed in Para.7, 8, 9, 10
\nand 11 as under :\n<\/p>\n
?S7.\tIn
\nMallett v. McMonagle 1970 (AC) 166, Lord Diplock analysed
\nin detail the uncertainties which arise at various stages in making a
\nrational estimate and practical ways of dealing with them.  In Davies
\nv. Taylor (1974) AC 207, it was held that the Court, in looking at
\nfuture uncertain events, does not decide whether on balance one thing
\nis more likely to happen than another, but merely puts a value on the
\nchances.A possibility may be ignored if it is slight
\nand remote.  Any method
\nof calculation is subordinate to the necessity for compensating the
\nreal loss.  But a practical approach to the calculation of the
\ndamages has been stated by Lord Wright in Davies v. Powell Duffryn
\nAssociated Colleries Ltd. (1942) 1 All ER 657, in the following
\nwords:\n<\/p>\n
?SThe
\nstarting point is the amount of wages
\nwhich the deceased was earning, the ascertainment of which to some
\nextent may depend on the regularity of his employment. Then
\nthere is an estimate of how much was required
\nto be spent for his own personal and living expenses.  The balance
\nwill give a datum or basic figure which will generally be turned into
\na lump sum by taking a certain number of years?” purchase.??\n<\/p>\n
8.\tIn State of Haryana and Anr. v. Jasbir Kaur and Ors.<\/a>\n<\/p>\n
(2003(7)
\nSCC 484) it was held as under:\n<\/p>\n
?S7.\n<\/p>\n
 It has to be kept in view that the Tribunal constituted
\nunder the Act as provided in Section 168 is required to make an award
\ndetermining the amount of compensation which is to be in the real
\nsense ?Sdamages?? which in turn appears to it to be ?Sjust and
\nreasonable??. It has to be borne in mind that compensation for loss
\nof limbs or life can hardly be weighed in golden scales. But at the
\nsame time it has to be borne in mind that the compensation is not
\nexpected to be a windfall for the victim. Statutory provisions
\nclearly indicate that the compensation must be ?Sjust?? and it
\ncannot be a bonanza; not a source of profit; but the same should not
\nbe a pittance. The courts and tribunals have a duty to
\nweigh the
\nvarious factors and quantify the amount of compensation, which should
\nbe just. What would be ??just?? compensation is a vexed question.
\nThere can be no golden rule applicable to all cases for measuring the
\nvalue of human life or a limb. Measure of damages cannot be arrived
\nat by precise mathematical calculations. It would depend upon the
\nparticular facts and circumstances, and attending peculiar or special
\nfeatures, if any. Every method or mode adopted for
\nassessing compensation
\nhas to be considered in the background of ??just?? compensation
\nwhich is the pivotal consideration. Though by use of the expression
\n?Swhich appears to it to be just?? a wide discretion is vested in
\nthe Tribunal, the determination has to be rational, to be done by a
\njudicious approach and not the outcome of whims, wild guesses and
\narbitrariness. The expression ??just?? denotes equitability,
\nfairness and reasonableness, and non-arbitrary. If it is not so it
\ncannot be just. (See Helen C. Rebello v. Maharashtra
\nSRTC (1999(1) SCC 90).\n<\/p>\n
9.\tThere
\nare some aspects of human life which are capable of
\nmonetary measurement, but the totality of human life is like the
\nbeauty of sunrise or the splendor of the stars, beyond the reach of
\nmonetary tape-measure.  The determination of damages for loss of
\nhuman life is an extremely difficult task and it becomes all the more
\nbaffling when the deceased is a child and\/or a non-earning person.
\nThe future of a child is uncertain.  Where the deceased was a child,
\nhe was earning nothing but had a prospect to earn.  The question of
\nassessment of compensation, therefore, becomes stiffer.  The figure
\nof compensation in such cases involves a good deal of guesswork.  In
\ncases, where parents are claimants, relevant factor would be age of
\nparents.\n<\/p>\n
10.\tIn
\ncase of the death of an infant, there may have been no
\nactual pecuniary benefit derived by its parents during the child?”s
\nlife-time. But this will not necessarily bar the parent?”s claim and
\nprospective loss will find a valid claim provided that the parents?”
\nestablish that they had a reasonable expectation of pecuniary benefit
\nif the child had lived. This principle was laid down by the House of
\nLords in the famous case of Taff Vale Rly. V. Jenkins (1913) AC 1,
\nand Lord Atkinson said thus:\n<\/p>\n
?S…..all
\nthat is necessary is that a reasonable
\nexpectation of pecuniary benefit should be entertained by the person
\nwho sues. It is quite true that the existence of this
\nexpectation
\nis an inference of fact ?  there must be a basis of fact from which
\nthe inference can reasonably be drawn; but I wish to express my
\nemphatic dissent from the proposition that it is necessary that two
\nof the facts without which the inference cannot be drawn are, first
\nthat the deceased earned money in the past, and, second, that he or
\nshe contributed to the support of the plaintiff. These are, no doubt,
\npregnant pieces of evidence, but they are only pieces of evidence;
\nand the necessary inference can I think, be drawn from circumstances
\nother than and different from them.?? (See Lata Wadhwa and Ors. v.
\nState of Bihar and Ors.<\/a>(2001 (8) SCC 197).\n<\/p>\n
11.\tThis
\nCourt in Lata Wadhwa?”s case (supra) while computing
\ncompensation made distinction between deceased children falling
\nwithin the age group of 5 to 10 years and age group of 10 to 15
\nyears.??\n<\/p>\n
6.\tAfter
\nobserving upto Para.7 to 11, the relevant observation which applies
\nto the facts of this case are that in cases of young
\nchildren of tender age, in view of uncertainties
\nabound, neither their income at the time of death nor the prospects
\nof the future increase in their income nor chances of advancement of
\ntheir career are capable of proper determination on estimated basis.
\nThe reason is that at such an early age, the uncertainties in regard
\nto their academic pursuits, achievements in career and thereafter
\nadvancement in life are so many that nothing can be assumed with
\nreasonable certainty.  Therefore, neither the income of the deceased
\nchild is capable of assessment on estimated basis nor the financial
\nloss suffered by the parents is capable of mathematical computation.\n<\/p>\n
7.\tTherefore,
\nthe Apex Court has applied the principle in case of Jasbir Kaur
\n(supra)  and awarded Rs.1,80,000\/- being a reasonable compensation to
\nthe parents. Therefore, according to my opinion, dependency which has
\nbeen decided by the claims Tribunal at Rs.1,80,000\/- and Rs.10,000\/-
\nfor expectation of life and Rs.5000\/- for funeral expenses, that
\ncannot be considered to be the compensation in real sense but, it is
\nthe expenses which have been awarded by claims Tribunal. Therefore,
\nthe contentions raised by learned advocate Mr.Parikh cannot be
\naccepted and same are rejected. Therefore, considering the decision
\nof Apex Court as referred above, according to my opinion, the claims
\nTribunal has rightly awarded just compensation, even then claimed by
\nclaimants. Therefore, the Tribunal has not committed any error which
\nrequires interference by this Court. Therefore, there is no substance
\nin the present appeal. Accordingly, present appeal is dismissed. The
\namount, If any, deposited with this Court for the purpose of appeal
\nshall be transmitted to the Tribunal concerned.\n<\/p>\n
8.\tAs the First Appeal No.5085 of 2008 is dismissed, no order is necessitated in Civil Application No.12471 of 2008. Accordingly, Civil Application No.12471  of 2008 is disposed of.\n<\/p>\n
(H.K.RATHOD,J.) <\/p>\n
(vipul)<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court New vs Fataji on 22 October, 2008 Author: H.K.Rathod,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print FA\/5085\/2008 8\/ 8 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 5085 of 2008 With CIVIL APPLICATION No. 12471 of 2008 ========================================================= NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD – Appellant(s) Versus FATAJI KALAJI […]<\/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":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-219584","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nNew vs Fataji on 22 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-vs-fataji-on-22-october-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"New vs Fataji on 22 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-vs-fataji-on-22-october-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-10-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-09-13T13:47:41+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/new-vs-fataji-on-22-october-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/new-vs-fataji-on-22-october-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"New vs Fataji on 22 October, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-10-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-13T13:47:41+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/new-vs-fataji-on-22-october-2008\"},\"wordCount\":2128,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/new-vs-fataji-on-22-october-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/new-vs-fataji-on-22-october-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/new-vs-fataji-on-22-october-2008\",\"name\":\"New vs Fataji on 22 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-10-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-13T13:47:41+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/new-vs-fataji-on-22-october-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/new-vs-fataji-on-22-october-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/new-vs-fataji-on-22-october-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"New vs Fataji on 22 October, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"New vs Fataji on 22 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-vs-fataji-on-22-october-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"New vs Fataji on 22 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-vs-fataji-on-22-october-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-10-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-09-13T13:47:41+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-vs-fataji-on-22-october-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-vs-fataji-on-22-october-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"New vs Fataji on 22 October, 2008","datePublished":"2008-10-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-13T13:47:41+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-vs-fataji-on-22-october-2008"},"wordCount":2128,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-vs-fataji-on-22-october-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-vs-fataji-on-22-october-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-vs-fataji-on-22-october-2008","name":"New vs Fataji on 22 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-10-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-13T13:47:41+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-vs-fataji-on-22-october-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-vs-fataji-on-22-october-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-vs-fataji-on-22-october-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"New vs Fataji on 22 October, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/219584","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=219584"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/219584\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=219584"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=219584"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=219584"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}