{"id":255565,"date":"2010-09-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-09-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abates-vs-shrirang-on-29-september-2010"},"modified":"2017-11-03T08:55:06","modified_gmt":"2017-11-03T03:25:06","slug":"abates-vs-shrirang-on-29-september-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abates-vs-shrirang-on-29-september-2010","title":{"rendered":"Abates vs Shrirang on 29 September, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Abates vs Shrirang on 29 September, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: A.M.Kapadia,&Nbsp;Honourable Mr.Justice J.C.Upadhyaya,&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\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nFA\/2387\/1998\t 10\/ 10\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. 2387 of 1998\n \n\n \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE A.M.KAPADIA\n \n\n  \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE J.C.UPADHYAYA\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\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 ?\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\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 ?\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\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tit is to be circulated to the civil judge ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n=========================================================\n\n \n\nABATES\nAS PER EXHIBIT.50 & 5 - Appellant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nSHRIRANG\nGULABRAV GHUMAR & 2 - Respondent (s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR.HIREN\nM MODI for\nAppellant(s) : 1 - 6. \nDELETED for Defendant(s) : 1, \nNOTICE\nSERVED BY DS for Defendant(s) : 2, \nMR RITURAJ M MEENA for\nDefendant(s) :\n3, \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 A.M.KAPADIA\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nand\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE J.C.UPADHYAYA\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 29\/09\/2010 \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n
(Per
\n: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.C.UPADHYAYA)<\/p>\n
1.\t\tChallenge
\nin  this appeal under section 173<\/a> of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1994
\n[for short ‘the Act’] is to the judgment and award dated 19\/12\/1997
\nrendered in M.A.C. Petition No. 348 of 1988 with M.A.C.P. No. 536 of
\n1988  by the Ld. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal [Aux.-IV], Kheda at
\nNadiad [for short ‘the Tribunal’], whereby so far as M.A.C.P. No. 348
\nof 1988 is concerned, the Tribunal awarded Rs.3,41,000\/- by way of
\ncompensation to the  appellants herein, who were original claimants
\nin the said claim petition with  running interest at the rate of 15%
\np.a., from the date of the said claim petition  till realization with
\nproportionate costs thereof.  The Tribunal further directed that the
\nrespondents herein who were original opponents in the aforesaid claim
\npetition,  shall pay the aforesaid compensation with interest jointly
\nand severally.   Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
\njudgment and award rendered by the Tribunal that the amount awarded
\nby way of compensation is on lower side and inadequate, the original
\nclaimants preferred this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
2.\t\tThe
\nfacts leading to the claim petition, in brief, are that the vehicular
\naccident occurred on 13\/1\/1988 between scooter bearing Registration
\nNo. GBV 6800 and Truck bearing Registration No. MHQ 3287 near Vasad
\non National Highway No. 8. Deceased Rajendrabhai Narsinhbhai, son of
\nappellant – claimant no. 1 and husband of appellant –
\nclaimant no. 2 and deceased Jagdishkumar Vallabhdas were proceeding
\non the scooter and at the place of accident, the truck which came
\nfrom the opposite direction  driving rashly and negligently by its
\ndriver, dashed with the scooter and both the occupants of the scooter
\nsustained serious injuries and both of them succumbed to the
\ninjuries.\n<\/p>\n
2.1.\t\tAs
\nper the case of the appellants – claimants, deceased
\nRajendrabhai was aged about 27 years at the time of his death and
\nthat he was deriving income from two sources, namely he was serving
\nin Mahalaxmi Pulse Mill and was getting Rs.1,500\/- per month by way
\nof salary as well as he was cultivating agricultural lands of his
\nfather, mother and aunt and he was getting his share from the
\nagricultural income. Accordingly, the appellants – claimants in
\nM.A.C.P. No. 348\/1988 claimed Rs.20 lacs by way of compensation.\n<\/p>\n
3.\t\tBefore
\nthe Tribunal,\tthe claim petition
\ncame to be contested by respondent – opponent no. 3 –
\nOriental Insurance Co. Ltd., by filing written statement at exh. 21,
\nwherein, in short, the negligence on the part of the driver of the
\ntruck was denied. The age, nature of  profession, income, etc., of
\nthe deceased Rajendrabhai was also denied.\n<\/p>\n
4.\t\tThe
\nTribunal consolidated both the claim petitions, namely M.A.C.
\nPetition No. 348  of 1988 and M.A.C. Petition No. 536 of 1988 and
\ncommon evidence was recorded and by impugned judgment and award dated
\n19\/12\/1997, both the claim petitions came
\nto be disposed of by the Tribunal. However, as stated above, the
\nclaimants of M.A.C. Petition No. 348 of 1988 felt that the amount
\nawarded by way of compensation was on lower side and was inadequate
\nand, therefore, the instant appeal came to be preferred.\n<\/p>\n
5.\t\tMr.\n<\/p>\n
Hiren Modi, learned advocate for the appellants  submitted that the
\namount awarded by way of compensation is on lower side and
\ninadequate. The Tribunal only took into consideration the income
\nderived by the deceased by way of salary, but did not take into
\nconsideration the income which the deceased derived as an
\nagriculturist. Mr. Modi, learned advocate for the appellants assailed
\nthe judgment and award rendered by the Tribunal on the count that the
\nTribunal did not consider future prospective income of the deceased
\nthough at the time of accidental death, the deceased was aged about
\n27 years. Mr. Modi, learned advocate for the appellants    further
\nsubmitted that the claimants examined appellant no. 3 –
\noriginal claimant no. 2 – Bhanumatiben before the Tribunal and
\nproduced relevant documents like extracts of revenue records of
\nagricultural lands cultivated by the deceased as well as the
\nagreements entered into between the deceased and the owners of the
\nland whereby 50% share of the agricultural income derived from  the
\nagricultural land was agreed to be paid to the deceased. Resultantly,
\nit is submitted that the appeal may be allowed and just and
\nappropriate amount of compensation be awarded to the appellants –
\nclaimants.\n<\/p>\n
6.\t\tPer
\ncontra, Mr. R M Meena, learned advocate representing  Insurance
\nCompany, vehemently opposed this appeal and submitted that the
\nTribunal did not commit any error in considering the income by way of
\nsalary which the deceased was earning. It is submitted that
\nconsidering the impugned judgment and award rendered by the Tribunal,
\nthe Tribunal has observed that the documents like the agreements
\nallegedly entered into between the deceased and owners of the land
\nwere concocted documents and rightly not relied upon those documents.
\nIt is submitted that as per the salary slips produced by the
\nclaimants, the deceased was earning Rs.1,500\/- per month by way of
\nsalary, yet the Tribunal considered the income of the deceased at
\nRs.2,000\/- p.m. Therefore, it is submitted that the amount awarded by
\nthe Tribunal to the appellants – claimants is just and
\nreasonable amount and cannot be said to be on lower side.\n<\/p>\n
6.1.\t\tUltimately,
\nit is submitted that the appeal may be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
7.\t\tWe
\nhave considered the submissions advanced by Mr. Hiren M  Modi,
\nlearned advocate for the appellants – claimants and Mr.  R. M. Meena,
\nlearned advocate representing  respondent – opponent no. 3 –
\n the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. We have examined the record and
\nproceedings of M.A.C. Petition No. 348 of 1988 in context with the
\nsubmissions made by the rival side.\n<\/p>\n
8.\t\tConsidering
\nthe impugned judgment and award rendered by the Tribunal, so far as
\nthe vehicular accident is concerned, the Tribunal, appreciating the
\nevidence on record, came to the conclusion that the vehicular
\naccident occurred between the truck and scooter on account of sole
\nrash and negligent driving of the truck by its driver. It is
\npertinent to note that neither the insurance company nor driver\/owner
\nof the truck preferred any appeal nor any cross appeal is preferred
\nchallenging the judgment and award rendered by the Tribunal.
\nTherefore, the findings arrived at by the Tribunal that the vehicular
\naccident occurred on account of sole rash and negligent driving by
\nthe driver of the truck had attained finality and even otherwise,
\nconsidering the evidence on record, we find no illegality or any
\nirregularity committed by the Tribunal in arriving at such
\nconclusion.\n<\/p>\n
9.\t\tRe-appreciating,
\nre-analyzing and re-evaluating the oral and documentary evidence on
\nrecord, there is no dispute that deceased Rajendrabhai was serving in
\nMahalaxmi Pulse Mills and as per the salary slip produced on record,
\nhis monthly salary was Rs.1,500\/-. Considering the evidence of the
\nwidow of the deceased,  she stated that over and above the service,
\nthe deceased was cultivating the agricultural land of her
\nfather-in-law, mother-in-law and aunt and the owners of the lands had
\nagreed to pay 50% share of the agricultural income to the deceased.
\nMr. Modi, learned advocate for the appellants – claimants
\nstated that considering  bills and vouchers showing the sale of the
\ncrops to different agricultural market committees, the annual income
\nwhich the deceased derived as an agriculturist was Rs.75,000\/- p.a.
\nMr. Modi, learned advocate for the appellants relied upon the
\ndocumentary evidence like the agreements entered into between the
\ndeceased and the owners of the lands, so also the bills and receipts
\nshowing sale of the crops to different societies.\n<\/p>\n
10.\t\tConsidering
\nthe oral and documentary evidence on record and as stated above, so
\nfar as the income derived by the deceased by way of salary is
\nconcerned, there is no dispute. However, so far as agricultural
\nincome is concerned, it is pertinent to note that the lands which,
\naccording to the claimants, the deceased used to cultivate were his
\nfamily lands, namely the lands belonging to his parents and aunt. In
\nthe aforesaid background, the Tribunal rightly did not rely upon the
\nagreements entered into between the deceased and his parents and
\naunt, referring the share of the agricultural income of the deceased.
\nHowever, the Tribunal considered the actual monthly income of the
\ndeceased at Rs.2,000\/-. Perusing the impugned judgment and award
\nrendered by the Tribunal, it is clear that the deceased was aged
\nabout 27 years. However, while determining the quantum of
\ncompensation under the head of loss to the dependency benefits, the
\nTribunal did not take into consideration the future prospective
\nincome of the deceased.  Considering his income derived from salary
\nas well as the fact that deceased was cultivating his family lands by
\nrendering his special skill and expertise as an agriculturist  and
\nconsidering the expenditure which the deceased was required to incur
\nwhile cultivating the agricultural lands and the fact that the
\ndeceased died in the accident in the year 1988, we are of the
\nconsidered view that the Tribunal should have taken into
\nconsideration future prospective income of the deceased and
\naccordingly, it would be in the interest of justice if the additional
\nfuture prospective monthly income is considered to be Rs.750\/-.
\nDeducting 1\/3rd amount of the self expenses which the
\ndeceased would have incurred had he been alive, from Rs.750\/- per
\nmonth, the net additional monthly dependency benefit comes to
\nRs.500\/- [Rs.750 – Rs.250 = Rs.500\/-]. Thus, the annual loss to
\nthe additional future dependency benefits would come to Rs.6,000\/-.
\nThe Tribunal has applied multiplier of 17 years. Considering the
\nfacts and circumstances of the case and considering the age of the
\ndeceased and relying upon the decision rendered in the case of  Smt.
\n Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation<\/a> reported in 2010 [1]
\nG.L.R.  p.17 delivered by
\nHon’ble the Apex Court, the Tribunal has rightly adopted the
\nmultiplier of 17 years for the deceased, who was aged about 27 years.
\n Thus, accordingly, the additional future loss to the dependency
\nbenefits would come to Rs.1,02,000\/- [Rs.6,000 x 17 = Rs.1,02,000\/-],
\nmaking rounded of, it would come to Rs.1,00,000\/-. Therefore, we are
\nof the considered opinion that the claimants are entitled to get
\nadditional amount of compensation at Rs.1,00,000\/- together with
\nrunning interest at the rate of 9% p.a., from the date of the claim
\npetition till the realization on the additional amount of
\ncompensation. Other amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal on
\nthe count of loss of expectation of life, loss of consortium and
\ntransportation and funeral charges, etc., appears to be just and
\nreasonable.\n<\/p>\n
11.\t\tFor
\nthe foregoing reasons, the appeal partly succeeds and accordingly it
\nis partly allowed. The appellants original claimants are entitled to
\nrecover Rs.1,00,000\/- [Rupees one lac only] by way of compensation in
\naddition to what was awarded vide impugned judgment and award dated
\n19\/12\/1997 rendered in M.A.C. Petition No. 348 of 1988 by the Ld.
\nMotor Accident Claims Tribunal [Aux. IV], Kheda at Nadiad, with
\nrunning interest at the rate of 9% p.a., from the date of the claim
\npetition till the date of realization on the additional amount of
\ncompensation with proportionate costs thereon.   The Tribunal is
\ndirected to disburse the additional amount of compensation together
\nwith interest and proportionate costs  to the appellants –
\nclaimants in equal share.\n<\/p>\n
12.\t\tThe
\nrespondents – original opponents shall deposit jointly and\/or
\nseverally the additional amount of compensation of Rs.1,00,000\/-
\ntogether with interest and proportionate costs referred to
\nhereinabove, within 8 [eight] weeks hereof, with the Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n
13.\t\tModified
\naward to be drawn up accordingly.\n<\/p>\n
(A.M.\n<\/p>\n
Kapadia, J.)<\/p>\n
(
\nJ.C. Upadhyaya, J.)<\/p>\n
*
\n Pansala.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Abates vs Shrirang on 29 September, 2010 Author: A.M.Kapadia,&Nbsp;Honourable Mr.Justice J.C.Upadhyaya,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print FA\/2387\/1998 10\/ 10 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 2387 of 1998 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.KAPADIA HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.C.UPADHYAYA ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local […]<\/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-255565","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nAbates vs Shrirang on 29 September, 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\/abates-vs-shrirang-on-29-september-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Abates vs Shrirang on 29 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abates-vs-shrirang-on-29-september-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=\"2010-09-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-11-03T03:25:06+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abates-vs-shrirang-on-29-september-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abates-vs-shrirang-on-29-september-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Abates vs Shrirang on 29 September, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-03T03:25:06+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abates-vs-shrirang-on-29-september-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1932,\"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\/abates-vs-shrirang-on-29-september-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abates-vs-shrirang-on-29-september-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abates-vs-shrirang-on-29-september-2010\",\"name\":\"Abates vs Shrirang on 29 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-03T03:25:06+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abates-vs-shrirang-on-29-september-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abates-vs-shrirang-on-29-september-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abates-vs-shrirang-on-29-september-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Abates vs Shrirang on 29 September, 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"Abates vs Shrirang on 29 September, 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\/abates-vs-shrirang-on-29-september-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Abates vs Shrirang on 29 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abates-vs-shrirang-on-29-september-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-09-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-11-03T03:25:06+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abates-vs-shrirang-on-29-september-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abates-vs-shrirang-on-29-september-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Abates vs Shrirang on 29 September, 2010","datePublished":"2010-09-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-03T03:25:06+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abates-vs-shrirang-on-29-september-2010"},"wordCount":1932,"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\/abates-vs-shrirang-on-29-september-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abates-vs-shrirang-on-29-september-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abates-vs-shrirang-on-29-september-2010","name":"Abates vs Shrirang on 29 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-09-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-03T03:25:06+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abates-vs-shrirang-on-29-september-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abates-vs-shrirang-on-29-september-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abates-vs-shrirang-on-29-september-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Abates vs Shrirang on 29 September, 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/255565","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=255565"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/255565\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=255565"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=255565"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=255565"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}