{"id":237825,"date":"2010-02-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-02-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gujarat-vs-thakorbhai-on-23-february-2010"},"modified":"2017-11-03T19:03:32","modified_gmt":"2017-11-03T13:33:32","slug":"gujarat-vs-thakorbhai-on-23-february-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gujarat-vs-thakorbhai-on-23-february-2010","title":{"rendered":"Gujarat vs Thakorbhai on 23 February, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Gujarat vs Thakorbhai on 23 February, 2010<\/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\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nFA\/150\/1988\t 15\/ 16\tJUDGMENT \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. 150 of 1988\n \n\nWith\n\n\n \n\nCROSS\nOBJECTION No. 25 of 2006\n \n\nIn\nFIRST APPEAL No. 150 of 1988\n \n\n \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE H.K.RATHOD    Sd\/-\n \n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n1\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tReporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?    \n\t\t\t                  YES\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n2\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nTo be\n\t\t\treferred to the Reporter or not ?     YES\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n3\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\ttheir Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?       \n\t\t\t                    YES\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n4\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tthis case involves a substantial question of law as to the\n\t\t\tinterpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order\n\t\t\tmade thereunder ?                                 NO\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n5 \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tit is to be circulated to the civil judge ?                       \n\t\t\t                    NO\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\nGUJARAT\nSTATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION - Appellant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nTHAKORBHAI\nPURSHOTTAMDAS PARIKH & 1 - Defendant(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nMD PANDYA for\nAppellant(s) : 1, \nMR YN OZA for Defendant(s) : 1, \nNone for\nDefendant(s) :\n2, \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: 23\/02\/2010 \n\n \n\nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n
\tHeard
\nlearned advocate Ms. Mayaben Desai for learned advocate Mr. M.D.
\nPandya appearing on behalf of appellant   Corporation and learned
\nadvocate Ms. Thula for learned senior advocate Mr. Y.N. Oza appearing
\non behalf of respondent   claimant.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe
\nappellant corporation has challenged award passed by MACT, Baroda in
\nMACP No.892 of 1983 decided on 13th November 1986. The
\nclaims tribunal has awarded total amount of compensation
\nRs.3,87,100\/- with 12% interest in favour of respondent claimant.\n<\/p>\n
\tLearned
\nadvocate Ms. Desai raised contention before this Court that decision
\nof claims tribunal in respect of deciding negligence of ST driver
\n100% is erroneous finding contrary to record. She submitted that
\nclaims tribunal has not considered panchnama properly and decided
\nsole negligence of ST driver. She submitted that 65% disability to
\nearning capacity of claimant is not reduced because he remained in
\nservice received regular salary upto the retirement. Therefore,
\nquestion of reducing earning capacity has been wrongly considered by
\nclaims tribunal. She submitted that there is no loss of earning
\ncapacity because physical disability having no adverse effect to the
\nearning capacity of claimant. She also submitted that it is a case of
\ncontributory negligence even though negligence of claimant has been
\nignored by claims tribunal. Ex.27 evidence of claimant Thakorbhai
\nPurshottamdas should not have to accept his testimony if it is
\nclosely scrutinized the evidence of claimant. The claims tribunal
\nought to have been held that the claimant has failed to prove that
\nopponent No.1 drove ST Bus No.GRR-8327 belonging to second opponent
\nto claim petition rashly and negligently and thereby caused injuries
\nto claimant. The claimant was driving his scooter at an excessive
\nspeed and was in hasty and was dashed with on coming bus which was on
\nits correct side. That fact has been ignored by claims tribunal while
\ndeciding sole negligence of ST bus driver. She submitted that it is a
\nclear case of sole negligence of claimant. The accident had occurred
\nat the junction of three roads; the front of the Rajmahel Tope, near
\nDiamond Jubilee Building, Rajmahel Road, National Highway No.8. The
\nclaims tribunal has not considered the case of ST Corporation that
\nscooterist was driving the scooter in middle of the road had taken
\nsudden turn to his right side without any sign and signal and doing
\nso has dashed his scooter with bus. The documentary evidence on
\nrecord panchnama Ex.42 and judgment of Criminal Court Ex.43 supports
\nto the contentions of appellant. She submitted that it is an amply
\nestablished that place of accident was the middle of road and
\npanchnama shows that the edge of the road of west of the place of
\naccident was eight steps (kadam), that is, about 16 feet and towards
\neast edge of the road was at a distance of 18 feet and that the
\naccident had taken place on Motibaug turning. She also submitted that
\namount of compensation which has been awarded by claims tribunal is
\non higher side and reason which has been assigned by claims Tribunal
\nin paragraph 26 and 27 for not relying upon testimony of ST driver is
\nerroneous finding which requires interference by this Court. She
\nemphasis that claims tribunal has not closely scrutinized the
\nevidence of Dr. Sukitu Trivedi recorded at Ex.38. She submitted that
\nclaims tribunal has committed error in not properly bearing in mind
\nthe aspect about disablement percentage when considering the
\ndisablement of limbs and total disablement of body taken as a whole
\nfrom the medical point of view and the impact of such physical
\ndisablement upon the earnings and earning capacity keeping in view,
\ninter alia, avocation of the victim present as well as future
\npossibility. She further submitted that claims Tribunal has committed
\ngross error in awarding Rs.40,000\/- on the head of pain, shock and
\nsuffering, which is on higher side and Rs.20,000\/- for future
\neconomic loss per year and accepting that loss would continue for
\nfurther period of 12 years, erred in assessing in awarding
\nRs.2,40,000\/- under the head of loss resulting from the loss of
\nearning capacity. Therefore, amount of Rs.2,40,000\/- has been wrongly
\nawarded which is apparently also on higher side.\n<\/p>\n
\tLearned
\nadvocate Ms. Thula for claimant raised contentions in support of
\ncross objection that loss of income of wife about 11 months has been
\nignored because wife was working as an employee and her salary was
\nnot considered by claims tribunal. The amount of compensation which
\nhas been worked out by claims tribunal is on lower side and claimant
\nis entitled more amounts in respect of diet, room charges, medical
\nbills and actual loss of income 11 months and salary of wife is not
\ntaken into account, who attended the claimant. Therefore, present
\nCross- Objection has been filed by claimant.\n<\/p>\n
\tI
\nhave considered submissions made by both learned advocates appearing
\non behalf of respective parties. I have also perused award passed by
\nclaims tribunal. The total claim was made by claimant for Rs.5 lakhs
\nfor the accidental injuries sustained by him during motor vehicular
\naccident which was occured on 23rd May 1983.\n<\/p>\n
\tAccording
\nto claimant, the accident had occurred on 23rd May 1983 at
\n12 noon near Diamond Jubilee Cottage Industries within city of
\nBaroda. According to him, there was ‘Vastu Puja’ ceremony of his new
\nbungalow and that he had given to distribute invitation card and was
\nreturning back. It is his case that he had reached near the spot of
\noccurrence at about 12 noon and was on his scooter, according to him,
\nST Bus No.GRR-8327 being driven by opponent came there and above said
\nvehicle was being driven in rash and negligent manner and at an
\nexcessive speed. It is also the case of claimant that opponent No.1
\nhad lost the control over his vehicle and violent dash was given to
\nhis vehicle and result of which, vehicle viz., scooter and himself
\nwere dragged along with ST bus for a distance of about 30 to 40 feet
\nand he had received various injuries including the fractures on the
\nhead, the fore-arm and the leg and as a result of which, he was
\nrequired to be removed to the SSG Hospital and was also requires to
\nstay there as an indoor patient for a pretty long time. For claiming
\ncompensation, according to him, he had received various injuries and
\nfractures on head, the fore-arm and the leg. There is a fracture on
\nthe right fore-arm along with fracture of right patella and fracture
\nof the index finger and also injuries to his face which was
\ndisfigured which he had required plastic surgery to be performed upon
\nhim. According to him, because of injuries received by him on the
\nlower leg, it was later on thought it fit and proper to amputated his
\nleg below the knee joined and operation was performed and he was
\nsuffered the amputation of the right leg from below the knee joint.
\nThe claimant was working at the time when accident was occurred as an
\nAssistant Administrative Officer in United India Assurance Co. Ltd.,
\nand later on, he was promoted and his total salary was Rs.2,587\/-.
\nThe estimate claim of claimant as narrated in paragraph 7 is as under
\n:\n<\/p>\n
 7.\tMoreover
\nit is the case of the applicant that looking to the injuries and the
\namputation of the right leg he is entitled to the future loss as
\nenumerated as under:\n<\/p>\n
Rs.45,000\/-\t–\n<\/p>\n
Future loss of non-promotion <\/p>\n
Rs.15,000\/-\t–\n<\/p>\n
Expenses for removal of plate <\/p>\n
Rs.10,000\/-\t–\n<\/p>\n
Expenses for plastic surgery <\/p>\n
Rs.10,000\/-\t–\n<\/p>\n
Expenses for operation of<\/p>\n
 removal of stifness <\/p>\n
Rs.5,000\/-\t–\n<\/p>\n
Operation of plastic surgery on<\/p>\n
 left side of face near ear to<\/p>\n
 remove scar which are spread on<\/p>\n
 face <\/p>\n
Rs.30,000\/-\t–\n<\/p>\n
Extra injections, fruits, extra<\/p>\n
 food like Omlet to maintain<\/p>\n
 the ragour <\/p>\n
Rs.3,600\/-\t–\n<\/p>\n
Physio therapy treatment for<\/p>\n
 four months <\/p>\n
Rs.5,000\/-\t–\n<\/p>\n
Rickshaw expensed for 25 days<\/p>\n
 in a months <\/p>\n
Rs.35,000\/-\t–\n<\/p>\n
Pain and sufferings because of<\/p>\n
 amputation of right leg <\/p>\n
Rs.35,000\/-\t–\n<\/p>\n
Permanent disability of right<\/p>\n
 hand and other leg <\/p>\n
Rs.50,000\/-\t–\n<\/p>\n
80 per cent disability because<\/p>\n
 of amputation of right leg<\/p>\n
 above knee portion.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe
\nS.T. Corporation has filed reply Ex.16 and Ex.13 and raised
\ncontention against claim petition while denying averments made in
\nclaim petition.  After considering pleadings of both parties, issues
\nhave been framed by claims tribunal by Ex.17. 90% disability has been
\ndenied by appellant Corporation. The claims tribunal after
\nconsidering evidence on record which has been appreciated in
\nparagraph 26 to 29 are under :\n<\/p>\n
 26.\t\tThus,
\nduring the cross-examination also the opponent No.1 has tried to say
\nthat he was not at all guilty for the accident but it is
\nunequivocally clear from his evidence that he had not seen the
\nscooterist before the accident and was able to locate the scooter
\nonly after the accident had taken place.  In view of this position,
\nhe cannot be believed when he says that the scooter had taken the
\nright hand side turn without giving any sign or signal.  When he had
\nnot seen the scooterist at all he can never testify regarding the
\naction taken by the scooterist at the relevant time.  Moreover,
\nthough he has denied allegation that the scooter was dragged
\nalongwith his vehicle for about 30′ he has admitted that he could
\nstop his bus only after covering a distance of 8′ ft.  Moreover, his
\nsay regarding the speed of his vehicle also cannot be accepted.  If
\nhis vehicle were to be running at the speed of about 25 KM he would
\nhave been able to stop his vehicle right on the spot of the
\noccurrence.\n<\/p>\n
27.\t\tMoreover
\nhis version that he was driving his bus slowly on the correct side of
\nthe road also cannot be accepted.  It requires to be appreciated that
\nthere is a road divider and the scooter was on the correct side but
\nthe bus had entered on the side where the scooter was passing and a
\ndash was given to the scooter.  It is also the case of the applicant
\nthat the scooter was dragged for a pretty long distance.  The
\nabovesaid case is indeed denied by the opponent No.1 but his evidence
\nwould go to show definitely that he could stop his vehicle only after
\ncovering a distance of about 8′.  the cumulative effect of the
\nabovesaid evidence would lead this Tribunal to hold that the accident
\nwas the result of rash and negligent driving on the part of the
\nopponent No.1 who was driving his vehicle at the relevant time.\n<\/p>\n
28.\tThis
\nview of the Tribunal gets the further support from the Panchnama at
\nEx.42.  The bare look to this panchnama at Ex.42 would reveal that
\nthe bus had covered a distance of 45′ ft. after dashing with the
\nscooter.  The scooter was lying beneath the rear wheel of the ST bus.
\n It means that the scooter was dragged alongwith the ST bus for a
\ndistance of about 45′.  At the time of the Panchnama also the scooter
\nwas found to be lying beneath the wheel of the ST bus.  Moreover,
\nlooking to the position of the vehicles it further becomes clear that
\nthe ST bus had entered into the incorrect side of the road.  The dash
\nwas given to the scooter on its front part because the front part was
\nfound to have been broken and damaged.  It therefore, becomes clear
\nthat the bus had entered into the incorrect side of the road and a
\ndash was given to the scooter and later on the scooter was dragged
\nalongwith the bus for a distance of 45′.  The scooterist\/ was also
\ndragged alongwith the abovesaid scooter.\n<\/p>\n
29.\tIt
\ntherefore conclusively follows as noticed by this Tribunal that the
\naccident was the result of rash and negligent action on the part of
\nthe opponent No.1 who was driving the ST bus at the relevant time.
\nThis issue therefore, requires to be decided in the affirmative and
\nthe same hereby accordingly decided.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe
\naforesaid observations made by claims tribunal while appreciating
\noral evidence as well as documentary evidence and relied upon
\npanchnama Ex.42 even bare look to this panchnama, it would reveal
\nthat bus had covered a distance of 45 feet after dashing with
\nscooter. The scooter was found to be lying beneath the wheel of ST
\nbus. Moreover, looking to position of vehicles, it further becomes
\nclear that ST bus had entered into incorrect side of the road. The
\ndash was given to scooter on its front part because the front part
\nwas found to have been broken and damaged. Therefore, it becomes
\nclear that bus had entered into the incorrect side of the road and a
\ndash was given to scooter and later on, the scooter was dragged along
\nwith bus for a distance of 45 feet. Therefore, Issue No.1 which has
\nbeen decided by claims tribunal affirmative holding that accident is
\noccurred due to sole negligence of ST bus driver.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe
\nquestion of quantum has been examined by claims tribunal after
\nconsidering evidence of claimant and Dr. Suketu Trivedi Ex.38 and
\nevidence of Dr. Trivedi has proved the certificate which is at Ex.39.
\nThe relevant discussion of evidence of Dr. Trivedi is made in
\nparagraph 32 to 34 are quoted as under :\n<\/p>\n
 32.\t\tThe
\napplicant has examined Dr. Suketu Trivedi at Ex.38. He has stated
\nthat Thakorbhai Purshottambhai was admitted as Indoor patient in the
\nSSG Hospital, Baroda on 23-5-83 and wad discharged on 13-8-83. Dr.
\nTrivedi has further testified that the applicant had multiple
\nfractures of the right  lower limb, the fracture shaft right humerus
\nand fracture middle phalanx left index with multiple CLWs. He has
\nfurther stated that the patient had the injury on the artery and
\nnailing of the fractures and the exploration of the injured artery
\nwas done on 23-5-83.\n<\/p>\n
33.\tDr.\n<\/p>\n
Trivedi has further testified that later on the right lower limb was
\naffected by gangrene and therefore the right leg was amputated from
\nabove the knee joint on 27-5-83. he has further stated that he
\npatient was operated on 19-7-83 for the fracture humerus and the
\nplating and the bone grafting was done. He has further stated that
\nthe injured applicant wad discharged on 13-8-83. Dr. Trivedi has
\nproved the certificate which is at Ex.39.\n<\/p>\n
32.\t\tDr.\n<\/p>\n
Trivedi has further testified as under :\n<\/p>\n
\t On
\nmy last examination I found that the fracture of shaft humerus right
\nwas well united.  There was terminal restriction of abduction and
\nroration of right shoulder.  He had above knee amputation on right
\nside stump length being 14.1\/2  from greater trauchanter.
\nDisablement is assessed at 60 per cent for the loss of lower limb and
\n5 per cent for the loss of movement at right shoulder.  Total
\ndisablement is assessed at 65 per cent.\n<\/p>\n
33.\t\tTherefore
\nfrom the abovesaid evidence of Dr.Trivedi it would further become
\nclear that later on the fracture of the shaft humerus was found to be
\nwell-united but the applicant has suffered the right knee amputation
\nand the length of the same is 14-14.1\/2  from greater trauchanter.
\nIt is also clear that the permanent disability incurred by the
\napplicant would come to 65 per cent.\n<\/p>\n
34.\t\tMoreover,
\nDr. Trivedi has stated that the patient may have to undergo operation
\nfor the removal of the nail on the right humerus and would be
\nrequired to stay in the hospital for a period of five days.  He has
\nfurther stated that he would not be able to drive a scooter in future
\nand that now no plastic surgery is required to be performed upon
\nhim.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn
\nview of aforesaid evidence which has been discussed by Dr. Trivedi
\nand also injury received by claimant has been discussed and described
\nwhich resulted the permanent disability incurred to claimant would
\ncome to 65%. On that basis, claims tribunal has examined matter while
\nkeeping in mind total emoluments received by claimant Rs.3,910\/- as
\nper pay-slip Ex.35 as discussed in paragraph 42 and 43 which are
\nquoted as under :\n<\/p>\n
 42.\t\tIt
\nis evident from the pay slip at Ex.35 that applicant earns that the
\ntotal emoluments of Rs.3910\/- PM on the date of the trial.  He has
\nincurred the permanent partial disability of 65 per cent as testified
\nby Dr. Suketu Trivedi at Ex.38.  The monthly loss at the rate of 6
\nper cent would come to Rs.2600\/-.  The yearly loss would come to
\nRs.29,200\/-.  Accepting that this loss would continue for a further
\nperiod of 12 years the figure would come to Rs.3,38,400\/-.\n<\/p>\n
43.\t\tIt
\nrequires to be appreciated that the
\napplicant is still in the service and as a matter of fact he has not
\nincurred any loss in his present income.  It is indeed true that
\nthere is the loss in the earning capacity.  In view of this position,
\nthis Tribunal is of the
\nopinion that the economic loss resulting from the loss in the earning
\ncapacity should be computed at the rate of Rs.20,000\/- per year.
\nAccepting that this loss would continue for a further period of 12
\nyears, the applicant should get an amount of Rs.2,40,000\/- on the
\nhead of the loss resulting from the loss of earning capacity.  The
\ntotal figure, therefore, would come to Rs.3,87,100\/- which the
\napplicant should get from the opponent together with costs and
\ninterest.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn
\nview of aforesaid discussion made in paragraph 42 and 43, claims
\ntribunal has rightly come to conclusion that monthly loss at the rate
\nof 65% would come to Rs.2,600\/- and yearly, it comes to Rs.29,200\/-
\nand looking to age of claimant, 12 multiplier has been rightly
\napplied and on that basis, amount of compensation has been worked
\nout, which has been rightly worked out by claims tribunal. For that,
\ncontentions raised by learned advocate Ms. Desai cannot be accepted
\nbecause detailed reasons have been given by claims tribunal while
\nappreciating entire evidence on record. For that, according to my
\nopinion, claims tribunal has not committed any error which requires
\ninterference by this Court. The contentions raised by claimant in
\nsupport of Cross-objection cannot be accepted, because, claims
\ntribunal has awarded reasonable just and proper compensation to
\nclaimant in respect of each head and not awarded any compensation on
\nlower side as contended by learned advocate of claimant.\tTherefore,
\nthere is no substance in Cross-objection filed by claimant.\n<\/p>\n
\tTherefore,
\naccording to my opinion, claims tribunal has perfectly justified in
\npassing award of compensation in favour of claimant while deciding
\nsole negligence of driver of ST bus and looking to injury about 65%
\npermanent disability with an amputation of right leg below knee and
\nconsidering period of indoor patient and pain, shock and suffering, a
\nreasonable amount has been awarded which cannot consider to be on
\nhigher side.\n<\/p>\n
\tTherefore,
\nthere is no substance in present First Appeal. Accordingly, present
\nFirst Appeal filed by appellant Corporation as well as
\nCross-objection field by claimant are dismissed. No order as to
\ncosts.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe
\namount, if any, deposited by appellant Corporation before registry of
\nthis Court, be transmitted to claims tribunal concerned, immediately.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt
\nis directed to claims tribunal concerned to pay whatever amount of
\ncompensation accruing with interest lying with it to Thakorbhai
\nPurshottamdas Parikh by account payee cheque, after proper
\nverification, immediately.\n<\/p>\n
\tR.\n<\/p>\n
& P., if available, be sent back to claims tribunal concerned,
\nforthwith.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tSd\/-\n<\/p>\n
[H.K.\n<\/p>\n
RATHOD, J.]<\/p>\n
#Dave<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Gujarat vs Thakorbhai on 23 February, 2010 Author: H.K.Rathod,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print FA\/150\/1988 15\/ 16 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 150 of 1988 With CROSS OBJECTION No. 25 of 2006 In FIRST APPEAL No. 150 of 1988 For Approval and Signature: […]<\/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-237825","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nGujarat vs Thakorbhai on 23 February, 2010 - 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\/gujarat-vs-thakorbhai-on-23-february-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Gujarat vs Thakorbhai on 23 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gujarat-vs-thakorbhai-on-23-february-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-02-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-11-03T13:33:32+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=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gujarat-vs-thakorbhai-on-23-february-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gujarat-vs-thakorbhai-on-23-february-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Gujarat vs Thakorbhai on 23 February, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-03T13:33:32+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gujarat-vs-thakorbhai-on-23-february-2010\"},\"wordCount\":3196,\"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\\\/gujarat-vs-thakorbhai-on-23-february-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gujarat-vs-thakorbhai-on-23-february-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gujarat-vs-thakorbhai-on-23-february-2010\",\"name\":\"Gujarat vs Thakorbhai on 23 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-03T13:33:32+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gujarat-vs-thakorbhai-on-23-february-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gujarat-vs-thakorbhai-on-23-february-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gujarat-vs-thakorbhai-on-23-february-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Gujarat vs Thakorbhai on 23 February, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"Gujarat vs Thakorbhai on 23 February, 2010 - 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\/gujarat-vs-thakorbhai-on-23-february-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Gujarat vs Thakorbhai on 23 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gujarat-vs-thakorbhai-on-23-february-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-02-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-11-03T13:33:32+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":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gujarat-vs-thakorbhai-on-23-february-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gujarat-vs-thakorbhai-on-23-february-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Gujarat vs Thakorbhai on 23 February, 2010","datePublished":"2010-02-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-03T13:33:32+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gujarat-vs-thakorbhai-on-23-february-2010"},"wordCount":3196,"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\/gujarat-vs-thakorbhai-on-23-february-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gujarat-vs-thakorbhai-on-23-february-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gujarat-vs-thakorbhai-on-23-february-2010","name":"Gujarat vs Thakorbhai on 23 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-02-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-03T13:33:32+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gujarat-vs-thakorbhai-on-23-february-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gujarat-vs-thakorbhai-on-23-february-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gujarat-vs-thakorbhai-on-23-february-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Gujarat vs Thakorbhai on 23 February, 2010"}]},{"@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\/237825","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=237825"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/237825\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=237825"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=237825"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=237825"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}