{"id":260954,"date":"2009-09-14T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-09-13T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandu-vs-lilu-alias-amin-ors-on-14-september-2009"},"modified":"2015-12-25T03:55:25","modified_gmt":"2015-12-24T22:25:25","slug":"chandu-vs-lilu-alias-amin-ors-on-14-september-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandu-vs-lilu-alias-amin-ors-on-14-september-2009","title":{"rendered":"Chandu vs Lilu Alias Amin & Ors on 14 September, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur<\/div>\n
Chandu vs Lilu Alias Amin & Ors on 14 September, 2009<\/div>\n
                                                                                        1\n\n                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN\n                                         AT JODHPUR\n\n\n                                          J U D G M E N T\n\n\n                    (1)            CIVIL MISC. APPEAL No. 153 of 1998\n\n                                                CHANDU\n                                                  V\/S\n                                          LILU ALIAS AMIN & ORS\n\n\n                    (2)            CIVIL MISC. APPEAL No. 154 of 1998\n\n                                                  NIMA\n                                                  V\/S\n                                          LILU ALIAS AMIN & ORS\n\n\n                    (3)            CIVIL MISC. APPEAL No. 155 of 1998\n\n                                            SHISHA PAL & ORS.\n                                                  V\/S\n                                          LILU ALIAS AMIN & ORS\n\n\n                    (4)            CIVIL MISC. APPEAL No. 156 of 1998\n                                             SARWANI & ORS.\n                                                  V\/S\n                                          LILU ALIAS AMIN & ORS\n\n\n             Date of Judgment                    :                  14.9.2009\n\n\n                                              PRESENT\n                                     HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J.\nREPORTABLE\n             Dr. Mrs. PRAMILA ACHARYA, for the appellant \/ petitioner\n             Mr. SANJEEV JOHARI, for the respondent\n\n             BY THE COURT :<\/pre>\n
                           These four appeals have been filed by the claimants,<\/p>\n
             against a common judgment of the learned Motor Accident Claims<\/p>\n
             Tribunal,     Nohar   Camp   Bhadra,    deciding   six   claim   petitions.<\/p>\n
             Appeal No. 153 arises out of claim petition no. 120\/93 which<\/p>\n
             was   filed    for    personal   injuries   received     by   the   claimant<\/p>\n
             Chandu, Appeal No. 154 arises out of claim petition no. 118
\n                                                                                        2<\/span><\/p>\n
which was also filed for personal injury sustained by the<\/p>\n
claimant Nima. Then, Appeal No. 155 arises out of claim no.<\/p>\n
123\/93 which was filed by the legal representatives of Smt.<\/p>\n
Badami on account of death of Smt. Badami, and Appeal No. 156<\/p>\n
arises out of claim petition no. 124 which was filed by legal<\/p>\n
representatives of Raji Ram on account of death of Raji Ram.<\/p>\n
            The necessary facts of the case are, that all the<\/p>\n
victims    were   travelling        in    goods    vehicle     no.     HR    20\/B\/357.<\/p>\n
According to the claim petitions when this vehicle reached<\/p>\n
near Patwa Bus Stand, the driver tried to overtake another<\/p>\n
goods     vehicle      RJ     13\/G-674,       by     driving      it      rashly    and<\/p>\n
negligently, and in that process it dashed against truck no.<\/p>\n
RJ 13\/1148, coming from the opposite side, as a result of<\/p>\n
which    two    persons      died   as    above,     and     other     persons      were<\/p>\n
injured.\n<\/p>\n
\n
            Reply      was    filed      on   behalf    of    owner       and   driver,<\/p>\n
contending that the victims were not travelling in the said<\/p>\n
goods vehicle no. 357, and they have nothing to do with the<\/p>\n
accident. It was also pleaded that his vehicle was hired by<\/p>\n
Badami    and   Raji    Ram    deceased,       for     carrying      on     some   dowry<\/p>\n
goods, and in the process when the vehicle was going, vehicle<\/p>\n
no. RJ 13 G-674 tried to overtake vehicle from the left hand<\/p>\n
side i.e. wrong side, and in that process severely hit the<\/p>\n
truck no. 357, pushing it on the wrong side, and in that<\/p>\n
process truck no. 357 hit against vehicle no. 1148, coming<\/p>\n
from opposite direction. It was pleaded that driver tried his<\/p>\n
best to avert the accident unsuccessfully.<\/p>\n
            The insurer also filed reply, contending that it has
\n                                                                                      3<\/span><\/p>\n
not been pleaded in the claim petition, as to in what capacity<\/p>\n
occupants were travelling in the vehicle, but it appears that<\/p>\n
they were travelling as passengers, while the vehicle was not<\/p>\n
authorised     to   carry   passengers.         Various      other     grounds    have<\/p>\n
been taken, and the liability of the insurer was denied.<\/p>\n
              The claim petition has been filed only against the<\/p>\n
driver, owner and insurer of vehicle no. 357.<\/p>\n
              The learned Tribunal framed five issues. Issue no. 1<\/p>\n
related to the question about negligence of the driver of<\/p>\n
truck   no.    357.     Then,    issue    no.    2     was   as   to    whether    the<\/p>\n
defendant no. 1 was in employment of the defendant no. 2.<\/p>\n
Then, issue no. 3 was about quantum of compensation. Issue no.<\/p>\n
4 was about effect of pleadings taken in additional pleas in<\/p>\n
the claim petitions, and issue no. 5 was about relief.<\/p>\n
              During trial claimants examined seven witnesses, and<\/p>\n
produced      various    documents       and    tendered     them      in   evidence,<\/p>\n
including site plan Ex. 4, and site inspection note Ex. 5. No<\/p>\n
evidence was led on the side of the defendants, so much so<\/p>\n
that even defendant no.1 driver, did not choose to appear in<\/p>\n
the witness box.\n<\/p>\n
\n
              Learned    trial     court       after     simply      recapitulating<\/p>\n
resume of the evidence produced on the side of the claimants,<\/p>\n
concluded that the evidence does not establish or indicate<\/p>\n
negligence on the part of the defendant no.1. It found, that<\/p>\n
it is not clear from the evidence that the driver of truck no.<\/p>\n
357 negligently drove it, and hit against the vehicle no.<\/p>\n
1148,   coming      from    the    opposite       direction       resulting       into
\n                                                                                            4<\/span><\/p>\n
victims receiving injuries and dying. Issue no. 2 was decided<\/p>\n
against the defendants. Then, issue no. 3 was decided against<\/p>\n
the claimants solely on the basis of findings arrived at on<\/p>\n
issue no.1. Then, issue no. 4 was also decided against the<\/p>\n
claimants, on the ground, that it is not clarified as to in<\/p>\n
what   capacity        the    victims      were    travelling         in    the        goods<\/p>\n
vehicle.    In    the    result     all    the     claim      petitions          had    been<\/p>\n
dismissed. Aggrieved of it only four appeals have been filed.<\/p>\n
Be that as it may.\n<\/p>\n
\n
            Arguing         the   appeal    it     was     contended,        that        the<\/p>\n
finding    of    the    learned     Tribunal        on    issue   no.        1    is     not<\/p>\n
sustainable, as it is out come of improper appreciation of<\/p>\n
evidence,       and   not    properly      looking       into   the        material      on<\/p>\n
record.\n<\/p>\n
\n
            Learned counsel for the insurer, on the other hand,<\/p>\n
supported the findings.\n<\/p>\n
\n
            I    have    considered       the     submissions,     and       have       gone<\/p>\n
through the record.\n<\/p>\n
\n
            I may straightway first of all come to the record.<\/p>\n
Coming to the claim petition, a look at the record shows, that<\/p>\n
the claim petition is not signed by the claimants, inasmuch as<\/p>\n
it is at the bottom in the last page only the mere thumb mark<\/p>\n
of the claimant\/s are there, otherwise all pages of the claim<\/p>\n
petition    do    not    bear     any   signature        or   thumb    mark        of    the<\/p>\n
claimant. It is a different story, that according to Rule 10.2<\/p>\n
of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Rules, 1990 the claim petition<\/p>\n
may be presented to the Claim Tribunal, and shall be signed by
\n                                                                              5<\/span><\/p>\n
the applicant.\n<\/p>\n
\n
           It is again a different story, that it has become<\/p>\n
more or less a rampant practice, practically in all the Motor<\/p>\n
Accident   Claims    Tribunals,      that    the     claim   petitions     are<\/p>\n
presented unsigned by the claimants. It is high time that the<\/p>\n
Tribunals should grasp the provisions of Rule 10.2, and start<\/p>\n
insisting upon the claim petitions to be received only when<\/p>\n
they are signed by the claimants.\n<\/p>\n
\n
           The grave consequences flowing there-from are that<\/p>\n
for the purpose of examining the aspect of variance between<\/p>\n
pleading   and   proof,   or   for    holding      the   claimant   to   their<\/p>\n
pleading, the Court is handicapped in absence of signature of<\/p>\n
the claimant. This is apart from the fact that at times the<\/p>\n
defendant may be taken by surprise, by the claimants shifting<\/p>\n
their stand from time to time. In that view of the matter, I<\/p>\n
am not in a position to take or consider the pleading taken by<\/p>\n
the claimant in this regard, as to how the accident occurred,<\/p>\n
and what are the facts pleaded constituting negligence of the<\/p>\n
driver of the delinquent vehicle, though brief description is<\/p>\n
contained in para-10. So far as the reply is concerned, the<\/p>\n
reply filed on behalf of owner and driver also stands on no<\/p>\n
better footing than the claim petition, as the reply too has<\/p>\n
not been signed, and only bears the thumb marks at the bottom<\/p>\n
of last page, and the other pages of the pleadings do not<\/p>\n
contain    any      signatures       of     the     defendant.      In    such<\/p>\n
circumstances, in order to examine the evidence, the stand<\/p>\n
taken in written statement also cannot be taken to be the<\/p>\n
stand pleaded by the defendant.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                              6<\/span><\/p>\n
\n
              It is well nigh possible that in some cases, the<\/p>\n
defendants may not be even aware as to what pleadings have<\/p>\n
been taken in the court on their behalf. May be, that it may<\/p>\n
not be the case here, but the possibilities are not ruled out<\/p>\n
about some blank papers bearing thumb mark of the defendant<\/p>\n
being available, could be used for manufacturing the written<\/p>\n
statement in the claim petition, and allowing the noose to be<\/p>\n
put in neck of owner and driver. In that view of the matter,<\/p>\n
the Tribunal should grasp the requirements and should stop the<\/p>\n
practice of receiving pleadings of either side unless they are<\/p>\n
signed on every paper by the party concerned.<\/p>\n
              In    view     of      the    above,    my    predicament        is    that    I<\/p>\n
cannot hold party to the purported pleading taken before the<\/p>\n
learned      Tribunal.         Obviously,        then      the   case    rests       on    the<\/p>\n
evidence on record. In this regard again, coming to the two<\/p>\n
documents         Ex.    4     and    Ex.       5,   the    things      make    startling<\/p>\n
revelation of remiss attitude of the public servants, inasmuch<\/p>\n
as    Ex.    4,    is    the    site       plan,     on    which     normally       implicit<\/p>\n
reliance is placed by the Tribunal, to arrive at a decision<\/p>\n
one way or the other, and then Ex. 5 is the site inspection<\/p>\n
note. A look at Ex. 4 shows, that at point A truck no. TATA<\/p>\n
407 is shown to be stationary in an accidented condition. At<\/p>\n
the   mark    B     is   shown       to    be    available       a   truck,    and    it    is<\/p>\n
mentioned that at the time of accident its one rear tyre was<\/p>\n
on the road rest entire truck was off the road in the sand,<\/p>\n
and it is opined that the truck driver was driving on the<\/p>\n
correct side, rather took the truck off the road, and the<\/p>\n
driver of TATA-407 went on the wrong side, and hit against the<\/p>\n
truck. It is strange, that the Investigating Officer has not<\/p>\n
chosen to mention the registration number of two vehicles,
\n                                                                                              7<\/span><\/p>\n
even    though     they     are    mentioned       in       the    first        information<\/p>\n
report. More so because during evidence the witnesses have<\/p>\n
described both the vehicles as TATA-407. Then, a look at Ex. 4<\/p>\n
shows that the two vehicles are standing at a distance from<\/p>\n
each other, and facing each other, and if the site plan is<\/p>\n
taken on the face value it cannot be said that any accident at<\/p>\n
all occurred. It is not shown that after the impact either of<\/p>\n
the vehicle was thrown at the place where it was found, no<\/p>\n
marks of application of brake, or other marks that might have<\/p>\n
available on road as marks of accident have been noticed by<\/p>\n
the I.O. Negligent attitude is writ large also from the fact<\/p>\n
that he was conscious of the fact that in site inspection note<\/p>\n
he is supposed to mention the total width of the road and a<\/p>\n
line has been written in Ex.5 about the width of the road on<\/p>\n
the site, but then space for mentioning figure of width have<\/p>\n
been left blank. In view of the sequence of the judgement of<\/p>\n
Hon’ble      the   Supreme        Court,    when       a     Motor    Accident         Claim<\/p>\n
Tribunal receives the copy of police paper as public documents<\/p>\n
and proceeds with the presumption u\/s 114 about regularity of<\/p>\n
the official acts, such type of omissions can be described to<\/p>\n
be nothing less than MISCONDUCT and not mere gross negligent<\/p>\n
act on the part of the I.O. and do tend to play havoc on<\/p>\n
either      side   i.e.     claimant       or    the       owner     of       the   vehicle.<\/p>\n
Photostat copy of the judgement, Ex.4 and Ex.5 be sent to the<\/p>\n
Inspector General of Police and to Hon’ble Home Minister to<\/p>\n
appropriately       examine        the    matter       and    take        a    very   strong<\/p>\n
disciplinary       action      against     the     delinquent         and       report     the<\/p>\n
outcome to this court.\n<\/p>\n
\n
              In this sequence I now come to the oral evidence,<\/p>\n
led    on   the    side   of      the    claimants.        A.W.1     Shishpal         in   his
\n                                                                                           8<\/span><\/p>\n
examination        in    chief   deposed     that    he    along      with      his    wife<\/p>\n
deceased Badami were travelling from Bakariyawali to Dabri in<\/p>\n
TATA-407 which met with an accident near Patwa when the driver<\/p>\n
of    TATA-407      was    driving      rashly    and     negligently.          One   four<\/p>\n
wheeler was going which was attempted to be overtaken by their<\/p>\n
driver, in which process it hit that four wheeler, then a big<\/p>\n
truck       came   from    opposite      direction       and    their      vehicle      hit<\/p>\n
against that, rather banged into it, in which accident his<\/p>\n
wife died, and so on. In cross examination he has stated, that<\/p>\n
in the first instance the vehicle coming from the opposite<\/p>\n
direction      hit      the   vehicle    that     was    moving      ahead      of    their<\/p>\n
vehicle. Then, the vehicle moving ahead hit their vehicle.<\/p>\n
Then, he has stated that in the first instance both TATA-407<\/p>\n
dashed       against      each   other,     and     this       was   on    account       of<\/p>\n
negligence of their driver. He has also deposed that after<\/p>\n
hitting,       their      vehicle    went   towards        right     side,      and     hit<\/p>\n
against other 407. Then, the driver left the steering. He has<\/p>\n
also stated that after both 407 hitting against each other,<\/p>\n
the    second      incident      occurred,       which     comprised       of     hitting<\/p>\n
against a stationary truck, while the first incident comprised<\/p>\n
of    two    TATA-407      hitting      against     each    other,        while      moving<\/p>\n
together.\n<\/p>\n
\n
               Then, the other witness is Adaram A.W.2. According<\/p>\n
to him he was also travelling in the truck in question along<\/p>\n
with other victims. According to him as soon as they moved<\/p>\n
ahead of Patwa, they tried to overtake the four wheeler, and<\/p>\n
at that time another truck came from the opposite direction,<\/p>\n
and accident occurred. In cross examination he has deposed<\/p>\n
that one more 407 was moving ahead of their 407, and that<\/p>\n
their truck overtook that another truck.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                       9<\/span><\/p>\n
\n
             Then, A.W. 3 Chandu is also one of the occupant, and<\/p>\n
one of the victims being appellant in Appeal no. 153. He has<\/p>\n
deposed, that their truck met with an accident near Patwa when<\/p>\n
their vehicle tried to cross another vehicle, and in that<\/p>\n
process accident occurred. According to him it appears that<\/p>\n
accident occurred on account of negligence of their driver.<\/p>\n
Then   in    cross    examination       he    has   deposed,     that     one      more<\/p>\n
vehicle was moving ahead of their vehicle, and both these<\/p>\n
vehicles in the first instance hit each other, then their<\/p>\n
vehicle hit against a truck coming from opposite direction.<\/p>\n
However, he is not aware, as to whether the truck moving ahead<\/p>\n
of them went away or not.\n<\/p>\n
\n
             Then,    A.W.4    Indraj    is    also    an    occupant,       and    has<\/p>\n
deposed      that    their    truck     407    tried    to     overtake      another<\/p>\n
vehicle, at that time a truck came from opposite direction,<\/p>\n
and in that process their truck hit against the truck coming<\/p>\n
from opposite direction. In cross examination he has stated,<\/p>\n
that it is wrong to say that their truck dashed against the<\/p>\n
truck which it was overtaking, and thereafter hit against the<\/p>\n
truck coming from opposite direction. Another witness A.W.4<\/p>\n
Shravani has also been examined which need not detain me, as<\/p>\n
she does not claim to be there at the time of accident, or to<\/p>\n
be in the vehicle.\n<\/p>\n
\n
             Then A.W.5 is Nima, another victim and appellant in<\/p>\n
appeal No.154, she has deposed that when they reached near<\/p>\n
Patwa, a truck was coming from opposite direction, and their<\/p>\n
TATA   407    dashed    against       that    truck    coming     from       opposite<\/p>\n
direction.     In    cross-examination        she     has    deposed    to    be   not
\n                                                                                   10<\/span><\/p>\n
aware as to whether any TATA 407 was proceeding ahead of their<\/p>\n
TATA 407 or not, she also does not know as to whether before<\/p>\n
the accident their TATA 407 hit against another TATA 407 or<\/p>\n
not, or as to how that accident occurred, though she claims to<\/p>\n
be sitting in the front cabin, where four persons including<\/p>\n
driver were sitting, but then claims, that she had veiled and<\/p>\n
came to know only after accident occurred.<\/p>\n
             Then   the    last   witness    is   A.W.6     Mahendra.       He   has<\/p>\n
deposed, that when they reached near Patwa, their truck was<\/p>\n
moving at a fast speed and their truck hit against the truck<\/p>\n
coming     from   opposite     direction,    which     accident      occurred     on<\/p>\n
account of negligence of defendant No.1. In cross-examination<\/p>\n
he is categoric to the effect that, that another TATA 407 was<\/p>\n
not moving ahead of their vehicle, and that their vehicle did<\/p>\n
not hit another TATA 407, before the accident. He claims to be<\/p>\n
sitting     in    the   hind   side,   and    came     to     know   only    after<\/p>\n
happening of the accident.\n<\/p>\n
\n
             As noticed above, no evidence has been led on the<\/p>\n
side of any of the defendants.\n<\/p>\n
\n
             This is the entire material available on record.<\/p>\n
             In my view, of course the evidence led on the side<\/p>\n
of   the   claimants      is   contradictory,     in    the    sense   that      the<\/p>\n
witnesses are not at one even on the question as to whether<\/p>\n
there were two accidents or one, i.e. in the first instance,<\/p>\n
the vehicle in which they were travelling hit against another<\/p>\n
vehicle, which it was trying to overtake, and then hit against<\/p>\n
the vehicle coming from opposite direction, or there was only
\n                                                                                   11<\/span><\/p>\n
one accident comprising of their vehicle hitting against a<\/p>\n
vehicle coming from opposite direction. Likewise they are not<\/p>\n
one even on the aspect as to how the accident occurred. The<\/p>\n
site plan, as noticed above also, in my view, cannot be relied<\/p>\n
upon, for the purpose of believing the things as it purports<\/p>\n
to contain.\n<\/p>\n
\n
             As a matter of fact and law, in my view, on the face<\/p>\n
of evidence produced by the parties, it was an imminently fit<\/p>\n
case, where the learned Tribunal should have been conscious of<\/p>\n
the provisions of Rule 10.14, Rule 10.15, so also Rule 10.16<\/p>\n
and should have made a sincere and earnest endeavour to arrive<\/p>\n
at    correct     conclusion,     one    way   or   the    other,       instead   of<\/p>\n
resting contented with noting contradictory set of evidence<\/p>\n
led    on   the   side    of   the     claimants,    and    to    conclude     about<\/p>\n
failure on the part of the claimants to prove negligence. All<\/p>\n
said and done, it is a severe accident, wherein two persons<\/p>\n
have    died,     and    number   of    persons     are    said    to   have   been<\/p>\n
injured, and the Court is asked by the claimant to believe,<\/p>\n
that it was head on collision. With this, the claim has been<\/p>\n
filed impleading owner, driver and insurer of one vehicle,<\/p>\n
being No.HR20-B-357 only, and now all the claimants go high<\/p>\n
and dry.\n<\/p>\n
\n
             In my view, in view of the above state of affairs,<\/p>\n
finding as recorded by the learned Tribunal on issue No.1 can<\/p>\n
possible be not sustained.\n<\/p>\n
\n
             It could be, that I could have undertaken exercise<\/p>\n
to arrive at the finding one way or the other on issue No.1,<\/p>\n
but then, looking to the state of scanty material, as noticed
\n                                                                           12<\/span><\/p>\n
above, that too would not have been a safe conclusion to be<\/p>\n
arrived at.\n<\/p>\n
\n
             In that view of the matter, I simply stand advised<\/p>\n
to set aside the impugned judgment and award, and remand the<\/p>\n
matter back to the learned Tribunal, for trying out the case<\/p>\n
afresh in accordance with law, keeping in view the facts found<\/p>\n
above,     deficiency     noticed   above,   and   the   observations   made<\/p>\n
above.\n<\/p>\n
\n
             The appeals are, accordingly, allowed. The impugned<\/p>\n
judgment and award is set aside, and the matter is remanded<\/p>\n
back to the learned Tribunal, for trying out the case afresh<\/p>\n
in accordance with law, keeping in view the facts found above,<\/p>\n
deficiency noticed above, and the observations made above.<\/p>\n
             Since the accident occurred way back in the year<\/p>\n
1993, a long period of more than 16 years has already rolled<\/p>\n
by, it is also directed, that the learned Tribunal shall take<\/p>\n
up   the    matter   on    utmost    priority,     and   decide   the   case<\/p>\n
expeditiously. Parties present shall appear before the learned<\/p>\n
Tribunal on 30.9.2009. Copy of the judgment be circulated to<\/p>\n
all the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in the State.<\/p>\n
                                                    ( N P GUPTA ),J.\n<\/p>\n
\n\/Sushil\/\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur Chandu vs Lilu Alias Amin & Ors on 14 September, 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR J U D G M E N T (1) CIVIL MISC. APPEAL No. 153 of 1998 CHANDU V\/S LILU ALIAS AMIN & ORS (2) CIVIL MISC. APPEAL No. […]<\/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":[8,19],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-260954","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-rajasthan-high-court-jodhpur"],"yoast_head":"\nChandu vs Lilu Alias Amin & Ors on 14 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandu-vs-lilu-alias-amin-ors-on-14-september-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Chandu vs Lilu Alias Amin & Ors on 14 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandu-vs-lilu-alias-amin-ors-on-14-september-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-09-13T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-12-24T22:25:25+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=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chandu-vs-lilu-alias-amin-ors-on-14-september-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chandu-vs-lilu-alias-amin-ors-on-14-september-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Chandu vs Lilu Alias Amin & Ors on 14 September, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-09-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-24T22:25:25+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chandu-vs-lilu-alias-amin-ors-on-14-september-2009\"},\"wordCount\":3051,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chandu-vs-lilu-alias-amin-ors-on-14-september-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chandu-vs-lilu-alias-amin-ors-on-14-september-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chandu-vs-lilu-alias-amin-ors-on-14-september-2009\",\"name\":\"Chandu vs Lilu Alias Amin & Ors on 14 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-09-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-24T22:25:25+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chandu-vs-lilu-alias-amin-ors-on-14-september-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chandu-vs-lilu-alias-amin-ors-on-14-september-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chandu-vs-lilu-alias-amin-ors-on-14-september-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Chandu vs Lilu Alias Amin & Ors on 14 September, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Chandu vs Lilu Alias Amin & Ors on 14 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandu-vs-lilu-alias-amin-ors-on-14-september-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Chandu vs Lilu Alias Amin & Ors on 14 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandu-vs-lilu-alias-amin-ors-on-14-september-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-09-13T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-12-24T22:25:25+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":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandu-vs-lilu-alias-amin-ors-on-14-september-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandu-vs-lilu-alias-amin-ors-on-14-september-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Chandu vs Lilu Alias Amin & Ors on 14 September, 2009","datePublished":"2009-09-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-24T22:25:25+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandu-vs-lilu-alias-amin-ors-on-14-september-2009"},"wordCount":3051,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandu-vs-lilu-alias-amin-ors-on-14-september-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandu-vs-lilu-alias-amin-ors-on-14-september-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandu-vs-lilu-alias-amin-ors-on-14-september-2009","name":"Chandu vs Lilu Alias Amin & Ors on 14 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-09-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-24T22:25:25+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandu-vs-lilu-alias-amin-ors-on-14-september-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandu-vs-lilu-alias-amin-ors-on-14-september-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandu-vs-lilu-alias-amin-ors-on-14-september-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Chandu vs Lilu Alias Amin & Ors on 14 September, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/260954","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=260954"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/260954\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=260954"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=260954"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=260954"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}