{"id":31953,"date":"2002-12-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-12-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nagappa-vs-gurudayal-singh-ors-on-3-december-2002"},"modified":"2018-01-10T14:14:53","modified_gmt":"2018-01-10T08:44:53","slug":"nagappa-vs-gurudayal-singh-ors-on-3-december-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nagappa-vs-gurudayal-singh-ors-on-3-december-2002","title":{"rendered":"Nagappa vs Gurudayal Singh & Ors on 3 December, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Nagappa vs Gurudayal Singh & Ors on 3 December, 2002<\/div>\n
Author: Shah<\/div>\n
Bench: M.B. Shah, B. P. Singh, H.K. Sema.<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  7989 of 2002\n\nPETITIONER:\nNagappa\n\nRESPONDENT:\nGurudayal Singh & Ors.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 03\/12\/2002\n\nBENCH:\nM.B. SHAH, B. P.  SINGH & H.K. SEMA.\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.19562 of 1999)<\/p>\n
Shah, J.\n<\/p>\n
\tLeave granted.\n<\/p>\n
Question involved in this appeal is  whether one time
\npayment of compensation to a poor agriculturist would be sufficient to
\nmeet the future medical expenses?  It is true that lump-sum
\ncompensation contemplating future eventualities can be granted but at
\nthe same time  Is it permissible under the Act to grant recurring
\nmedical expenses to such a victim?  Secondly, whether amendment to
\nthe claim petition could be granted at the appellate stage?\n<\/p>\n
Before we deal with this question, we would narrate a few facts.
\nThe appellant, a poor agriculturist, along with some other persons was
\ntravelling in a bullock cart on 6.2.1985 which met with an accident
\nwith a truck as a result of which he suffered injuries including the
\ninjury on right foot and right ankle exposing soft tissues and bones
\nwhich was subsequently required to be amputated.  Other persons
\nalso sustained injuries and the bullock cart was also damaged.\tThe
\nappellant, alongwith other injured persons, filed claim application
\nbearing MVC No. 321 of 1985 before the Claims Tribunal,
\nChitradurga.  The Tribunal passed an award dated 26.3.1990 granting
\na sum of Rs. 15,000\/- for injury, pain and suffering, Rs. 5000\/- for
\nloss of enjoyment of life and Rs. 5000\/- for loss of earnings and Rs.
\n5000\/- for medical treatment, totaling Rs. 30,000\/- with interest at the
\nrate of 9 % per annum from the date of application.  Against that
\naward, appellant preferred MFA No. 2237\/90 before the High Court
\nof Karnataka at Bangalore.  The High Court enhanced the
\ncompensation and awarded Rs.82,000\/- towards the loss of amenities
\nof life, loss of future earnings, pain and sufferings. Apart from this
\nsum, it was ordered that the appellant shall be entitled to a further sum
\nof Rs.18000\/- for purchase of artificial leg.  It has come on record that
\nthe appellant was an agriculturist and that according to the medical
\nevidence, he had suffered 80 to 85 per cent permanent disability.  The
\nmedical evidence further reveals that his right leg was amputated and
\nhe  was required to change the artificial leg once in 2 to 3 years.\n<\/p>\n
Before we deal with the question of compensation, we would
\nrefer to second contention  which is raised in this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
Amendment to the Claim Petition claiming enhanced
\ncompensation:-\n<\/p>\n
At the time of hearing of this matter, learned counsel for the
\nappellant has filed an application seeking permission to amend the
\nclaim petition and for enhancement of claim to the tune of Rs.5 lacs as
\ncompensation.  Before the trial Court, the Claim was only for a sum of
\nRs.one lac.\n<\/p>\n
The learned counsel for the Insurance company contended that
\nthe appellant cannot be permitted to amend the claim petition and
\nclaim enhanced compensation.  As against this, learned counsel for
\nthe appellant submitted that under the Act there is no prohibition for
\namending the claim petition and in any case Order 6 Rule 17 CPC is
\napplicable to such claim petition under Karnataka Motor Vehicles
\nRules.\tHence, it is the discretion of the Court to permit amendment of
\nthe claim petition in appropriate case.\n<\/p>\n
Firstly, under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,
\n(hereinafter referred to as “the MV Act”) there is no restriction that
\ncompensation could be awarded only up to the amount claimed by the
\nclaimant.  In an appropriate case where from the evidence brought on
\nrecord if Tribunal\/court considers that claimant is entitled to get more
\ncompensation than claimed, the Tribunal may pass such award.  Only
\nembargo isit should be ‘Just’ compensation, that is to say, it should
\nbe neither arbitrary, fanciful nor unjustifiable from the evidence.  This
\nwould be clear by reference to the relevant provisions of the M.V.
\nAct.  Section 166 provides that an application for compensation
\narising out of an accident involving the death of, or bodily injury to,
\npersons arising out of the use of motor vehicles, or damages to any
\nproperty of a third party so arising, or both, could be made (a) by the
\nperson who has sustained the injury; or (b) by the owner of the
\nproperty; or (c) where death has resulted from the accident, by all or
\nany of the legal representatives of the deceased; or (d) by any agent
\nduly authorised by the person injured or all or any of the legal
\nrepresentatives of the deceased, as the case may be.  Under the
\nproviso to sub-section (1), all the legal representatives of the deceased
\nwho have not joined as the claimants are to be impleaded as
\nrespondents to the application for compensation.  Other important part
\nof the said Section is sub-section (4) which provides that  “the Claims
\nTribunal shall treat any report of accidents forwarded to it under sub-
\nsection (6) of Section 158 as an application for compensation under
\nthis Act.”  Hence, Claims Tribunal in appropriate case can treat the
\nreport forwarded to it as an application for compensation even though
\nno such claim is made or no specified amount is claimed.\n<\/p>\n
Sub-section (6) of Section 158 reads thus:\n<\/p>\n
“158.\t Production of certain certificates, licence and
\npermit in certain cases. ..\n<\/p>\n
(6)\tAs soon as any information regarding any
\naccident involving death or bodily injury to any person is
\nrecorded or report under this section is completed by a
\npolice officer, the officer incharge of the police station
\nshall forward a copy of the same within thirty days from
\nthe date of recording of information or, as the case may
\nbe, on completion of such report to the Claims Tribunal
\nhaving jurisdiction and a copy thereof to the concerned
\ninsurer, and where a copy is made available to the
\nowner, he shall also within thirty days of receipt of such
\nreport, forward the same to such Claims Tribunal and
\nInsurer.”\n<\/p>\n
It appears that due importance is not given to\tsub-section (4)
\nof Section 166 which provides that the Tribunal shall treat any report
\nof the accidents forwarded to it under sub-section (6) of Section 158,
\nas an application for compensation under this Act.\n<\/p>\n
Thereafter, Section 168 empowers the Claims Tribunal to
\n“make an award determining the amount of compensation which
\nappears to it to be just”. Therefore, only requirement for determining
\nthe compensation is that it must be ‘just’.  There is no other limitation
\nor restriction on its power for awarding just compensation.\n<\/p>\n
Secondly, under Section 169, the Claims Tribunal in holding
\nany inquiry under Section 168 is required to follow the rules that are
\nmade in this behalf and follow such summary procedure as it thinks
\nfit.  In the present case, it has been pointed out that Rule 253 of
\nKarnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 empowers the Claims Tribunal
\nto exercise all or any of the powers vested in a Civil Court under the
\nprovisions of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.  Rule 254 inter alia
\nmakes specific provision that Order 6 Rule 17 CPC is applicable to
\nsuch proceedings.  In this view of the matter, in an appropriate case,
\ndepending upon the facts and the evidence which has been brought on
\nrecord and in the interest of justice, Court may permit amendment of
\nclaim petition so as to award enhanced compensation.  Further, for
\namendment of the pleadings, it is settled law that unless it causes
\ninjustice to other side or it is not necessary for the purpose of
\ndetermining real issue between the parties, Court would grant
\namendment.  It is also to be stated that under the M. V. Act there is no
\ntime limit prescribed for claiming compensation.  Therefore, there is
\nno question of enhanced claim being barred by limitation.\n<\/p>\n
This Court in Sheikhupura Transport Co. Ltd. v. Northern
\nIndian Transport Insurance Co.<\/a>\t[(1971) Suppl. SCR 20] observed as
\nunder: –\n<\/p>\n
“.the pecuniary loss to the aggrieved party
\nwould depend upon data which cannot be ascertained
\naccurately but must necessarily be an estimate or even
\npartly a conjecture<\/p>\n
The determination of the question of compensation
\ndepends on several imponderables.  In the assessment of
\nthose imponderables, there is likely to be a margin of
\nerror.”\n<\/p>\n
Hence, as stated earlier, it is for the Tribunal to determine just
\ncompensation from the evidence which is brought on record despite
\nthe fact that claimant has not precisely stated the amount of damages
\nof compensation which he is entitled to.  If evidence on record
\njustifies passing of such award, the claim cannot be rejected solely on
\nthe ground that claimant has restricted his claim. Form 63 of the
\nKarnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, which is for filing an
\napplication for compensation, does not provide that claimant should
\nspecify his claim amount.  It inter alia provides that he should mention
\nhis monthly income as well as the nature of injury sustained and
\nmedical certificates.\n<\/p>\n
In case, where there is evidence on record justifying the
\nenhanced compensation for the medical treatment which is required
\nbecause of the injury caused to a claimant due to the accident, there is
\nno reason why such amendment or enhanced compensation should not
\nbe granted.  In such cases, there is no question of introducing a new or
\ninconsistent cause of action.  Cause of action and evidence remain the
\nsame.  Only Question is\t application of law as it stands.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. P.K. Chakravarty, learned counsel appearing for the
\nInsurance Company, in support of his contention that the Tribunal has
\nno jurisdiction to award higher amount of compensation than what is
\nclaimed\t even though it is not likely to cause prejudice to the
\nInsurance Company,  heavily relied upon the decision rendered by the
\nFull Bench of the High Court of Gujarat in Dr. Urmila J. Sangani v.
\nPragjibhai Mohanlal Luvana and others [AIR 2000 Gujarat 211]. In
\nthat case, the High Court after considering relevant decisions on the
\nsubject observed thus:\n<\/p>\n
“.We may mention that when the claimant feels
\nthat he is entitled to more compensation than what is
\nclaimed in the petition, it is always open to him\/her to
\namend the claim petition and if the same is in consonance
\nwith the equity, justice and good conscience, there is no
\nreason why the Claims Tribunal should not grant
\namendment.  Before compensation more than claimed is
\nawarded, the opposite parties should be put to notice, the
\nrequisite additional issue\/issues should be raised and the
\nparties should be permitted to adduce their evidence on
\nthe additional issues, but if no such opportunity is given,
\nthe procedure would obviously suffer from material
\nirregularity affecting the decision.”\n<\/p>\n
From the aforesaid observations it cannot be held that there is a
\nbar for the Claims Tribunal to award the compensation in excess of
\nwhat is claimed, particularly when the evidence which is brought on
\nrecord is sufficient to pass such award.  In cases where there is no
\nevidence on record, the Court may permit such amendment and allow
\nto raise additional issue and give an opportunity to the parties to
\nproduce relevant evidence.\n<\/p>\n
In support of her contention, the learned counsel for the
\nappellant Mrs. Kiran Suri referred to the decision of Bombay High
\nCourt in Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and another v.
\nKisan Gangaram Hire and others [1987 ACJ 311] wherein the Court
\ndealt with similar contention and observed thus:
\n“8.\tWhat is further necessary to note is that
\nwhat gives a cause of action for preferring an application
\nfor claim for compensation is the accident by motor
\nvehicle or vehicles and not a particular monetary loss
\noccasioned by such accident.  While the compensation in
\nall no fault claim cases is fixed and uniform, in fault
\nclaim cases the losses may vary from case to case.  The
\nparticular losses are merely the consequence of the
\naccident which is the cause of action.\tThis being so, the
\namounts of compensation claimed are nothing but the
\nparticulars of the claim made.\tBy its very nature, further
\nthe amount of compensation claimed cannot always be
\ncalculated precisely.  In many cases it can at best be a fair
\nestimate…”\n<\/p>\n
The High Court observed that in all such cases, it is necessary
\nto keep the doors open for the claimant to make the claims, on
\ngrounds not stated earlier or for more amounts under heads already
\nspecified in the application.\n<\/p>\n
The aforesaid decision of the Bombay High Court was relied
\nupon and referred to by the Orissa High Court in Mulla Md. Abdul
\nWahib v. Abdul Rahim and another [1994 ACJ 348] and G.B.
\nPatnaik, J. (as he then was) observed that the expression “just
\ncompensation” would obviously mean what is fair, moderate and
\nreasonable and awardable in the proved circumstances of a particular
\ncase and the expression “which appears to it to be just” vests a wide
\ndiscretion in the Tribunal in the matter of determining of
\ncompensation.  Thereafter, the Court referred to the decision in
\nSheikhupura Transport Co. Ltd (supra) and held that the pecuniary
\nloss to the aggrieved party would depend upon data which cannot be
\nascertained accurately but must necessarily be an estimate or even
\npartly a conjecture, and if this is so, then it will be unreasonable to
\nexpect the party to state precisely the amount of damages or
\ncompensation that it would be entitled to.  The Court also held that
\nthere are no fetters on the power of the Tribunal to award
\ncompensation in excess of the amount which is claimed in the
\napplication.\n<\/p>\n
Similarly, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Devki
\nNandan Bangur and others v. State of Haryana and others [1995
\nACJ 1288] observed that the grant of just and fair compensation is
\nstatutory responsibility of the Court and if, on the facts, the Court
\nfinds that the claimant is entitled to higher compensation, the Court
\nshould allow the claimant to amend his prayer and allow proper
\ncompensation.\n<\/p>\n
For the reasons discussed above, in our view, under the M.V.
\nAct, there is no restriction that Tribunal\/Court cannot award
\ncompensation amount exceeding the claimed amount.  The function of
\nthe Tribunal\/Court is to award ‘Just’ compensation which is
\nreasonable on the basis of evidence produced on record. Further, in
\nsuch cases there is no question\t of claim becoming time barred or it
\ncannot be contended that by  enhancing the claim there would be
\nchange of cause of action.  It is also to be stated that as provided under
\nsub-section (4) to Section 166, even report submitted to the Claims
\nTribunal under sub-section (6) of Section 158 can be treated as an
\napplication for compensation under the M.V. Act. If required, in
\nappropriate cases, Court may permit amendment to the Claim Petition.\n<\/p>\n
Is it permissible under the Act to award compensation by
\ninstalments or recurring compensation to meet the future
\nmedical expenses of the victim?\n<\/p>\n
To an agriculturist, loss of leg vitally affects not only his
\nworking capacity but also his livelihood. In this context, Lord
\nDenning M.R. in Lim Poh Choo v. Camden and Islington Area
\nHealth Authority [(1979) 1 All ER 332] quoted with approval the
\nobservations of Parke B, which are as under: –
\n‘Scarcely any sum could compensate a labouring
\nman for the loss of a limb, yet you do not in such a case
\ngive him enough to maintain him for lifeYou are not
\nto consider the value of existence as if you were
\nbargaining with an annuity officeI advise you to take
\na reasonable view of the case and give what you
\nconsider fair compensation.’<\/p>\n
\tHowever, it is to be clearly understood that M.V. Act does not
\nprovide for passing of further award after final award is passed.
\nTherefore, in a case where injury to a victim requires periodical
\nmedical expenses, fresh award cannot be passed or previous award
\ncannot be reviewed when the medical expenses are incurred after
\nfinalisation of the compensation proceedings.  Hence, only alternative
\nis that at the time of passing of final award, Tribunal\/Court should
\nconsider such eventuality and fix compensation accordingly.  No one
\ncan suggest that it is improper to take into account expenditure
\ngenuinely and reasonably required to be incurred for future medical
\nexpenses.  Future medical expenses required to be incurred can be
\ndetermined only on the basis of fair guess-work after taking into
\naccount increase in the cost of medical treatment.\n<\/p>\n
This position is made clear  in Union Carbide Corporation and
\nothers v. Union of India and others<\/a> [(1991) 4 SCC 584 para 131]
\nwhere this Court observed as under: –\n<\/p>\n
\t “.In an action for negligence, damages must be
\nand are assessed once and for all at the trial of such an
\nissue.\tEven if it is found later that the damage suffered
\nwas much greater than was originally supposed, no
\nfurther action could be brought.  It is well settled rule of
\nlaw that damages resulting from one and the same cause
\nof action must be assessed and recovered once and for
\nall. Two actions, therefore, will not lie against the same
\ndefendant for personal injury sustained in the same
\naccident.”\n<\/p>\n
Further, compensation to a victim of a motor vehicle accident
\nor in case of a fatal accident to the legal representatives is awarded
\nunder two heads, namely, Special damages  which are suffered by
\nthe victim or the legal representatives and General damages  which
\ninclude compensation for pain and sufferings, loss of amenities,
\nearning capacity and prospective expenses including expenses for
\nmedical treatment.  With regard to the first part of the damages, that
\nis, special damages suffered by the victim or the legal representative,
\nit can be easily proved on the basis of the evidence which is in
\npossession of the claimant.  However with regard to the second part
\ngeneral damages\/compensation, it would be a matter of conjectures
\ndepending on number of imponderables. In Lim Poh Choo case
\n(supra), Lord Denning observed as under: –\n<\/p>\n
“The practice is now established and cannot be
\ngainsaid that, in personal injury cases, the award of
\ndamages is assessed under four main heads: first, special
\ndamages in the shape of money actually expended;
\nsecond, cost of future nursing and attendance and
\nmedical expenses; third, pain and suffering and loss of
\namenities; fourth, loss of future earnings.”\n<\/p>\n
While calculating such damages, the Tribunal\/Court is required
\nto have some guess work taking into account the inflation factor.  This
\naspect is well discussed by M.J. Rao, J. (as he then was)] in P.
\nSatyanarayana v. I. Babu Rajendra Prasad and<\/a> another [1988 ACJ
\n88 (A.P.)].  The learned Judge has given a Classification of Injuries :
\nA Useful Guide and has observed thus:\n<\/p>\n
“24.\tIf a collection of cases on the quantum of
\ndamages is to be useful, it must necessarily be classified
\nin such a way that comparable cases can be grouped
\ntogether.  No doubt, no two cases are alike but still, it is
\npossible to make a broad classification which enables one
\nto bring comparable awards together.  Such
\nclassifications have been made by Bingham in his Motor
\nClaims Cases, Munkman in his Employer’s Liability and
\nKemp & Kemp in their Quantum of Damages. (Munkman
\np.181).\n<\/p>\n
26.\tCases relating to injuries have been
\nclassified into four categories, i.e.: (a) total wrecks; (b)
\npartial wrecks and (c) where limbs and eyes and other
\nspecific parts of the body are lost, which can be sub-
\ngrouped according to the type of limb lost and (d) smaller
\ninjuries which cannot be specifically grouped but for
\nwhich compensation can be assessed by comparison with
\ninjuries of loss of limbs, e.g., comparing permanent
\n‘wrist\t  injuries’   with   ‘loss of hand’,   or  comparing  a
\ntemporary broken arm with the loss of the arm etc.  Such
\ncomparisons are often made by judges.  Munkman points
\nout that in America, Mr. Melvin M. Belli, an eminent
\nlawyer, classified injuries into 11 categories as (1) Back;
\n(2) Traumatic amputation of leg; (3) Paralysis; (4) Hand
\nor arm off; (5) Death; (6) Multiple fractures; (7) Burns;
\n(8) Personality change; (9) Blindness; (10) Brain injury
\nand (11) Occupation diseases.  By 1967, awards (say) for
\nblindness had risen to 930,000 dollars (Munkman pp.181-\n<\/p>\n
182).  Today after 20 years, these awards must have gone
\nup further.  The ‘total wreck’ category comprises of cases
\nof complete incapacity for work and virtually no
\nenjoyment of life, e.g., paralysis, severe brain injury
\ncausing insanity, multiple injuries leaving the victim a
\ntotal cripple.\tThe ‘partial wreck’ cases are also cases
\nwhere the entire body is affected and not one set of limbs
\nalone as in the third category.\t Cases of brain injuries
\nresulting in a personality change and multiple injuries
\nwith grave disfigurement fall in this second category.
\nThe third category does not present much difficulty for
\nsub-classification.  The fourth category deals with minor
\ninjuries in a limb which be compared with major injuries
\nin the same limb.\n<\/p>\n
Past InflationRelevancy of Date of Accident:\n<\/p>\n
27.\tThe dates of accident resulting in similar
\ninjuries have great relevancy.\tFor example, if a particular
\nconventional sum of (say) Rs.10,000\/- was awarded
\ntowards the non-pecuniary damages of loss of expectation
\nof life, loss or amenities and pain and sufferingall put
\ntogetherin a case of amputation of a leg consequent to
\nan accident in 1970, the award to be made for an identical
\nloss today would have to be upgraded from the 1970 value
\nto its value in 1987, having regard to the erosion of the
\nvalue of the rupee.  This can be done by comparing the
\ncost of living index in 1970 with that in 1987.
\nCharlesworth on Negligence, 6th Edn.,1977, para 14, says,
\nthe ‘conventional figures’ must keep ‘pace with the times
\nin which we live’.  He says that this can be well illustrated
\nby considering the class of injury resulting (say) in the
\nloss of sight in one eye and the conventional sum lay
\naround\t2000  about a quarter of a century ago but today
\nin 1977 it will probably exceed 5000 or it ought to do.
\nKemp & Kemp on Damages, 1982, Chapter 7, para 7001,
\nsay: If a court is seeking to make a comparison with some
\nearlier award (for non-pecuniary losses) and if by the date
\nof the comparison, the currency in which the earlier award
\nwas made has declined by, say, 50 per cent, one must
\nsurely double the earlier award in order to make a valid
\ncomparison.  The authors have compiled two tables (at
\nparas 7007 and 7008), one showing the current level of
\ngeneral damages for ‘pain and suffering’ and ‘loss of
\namenities’ in cases of severe injury and the other showing
\nsimilar earlier years, and have compared whether courts
\nare or are not keeping pace with inflation.  The authors
\nask, why tort-feasors alone, as a class should be excused
\nfrom paying the value-based price?  In Walker v. John
\nMcLean & Sons Ltd., 1980 ACJ 429 (CA, England), the
\ncourt found that while the value of the pound fell by 50%
\nbetween 1957 and 1972 (over a period of 15 years), there
\nwas a steeper fall between 1973 to 1978 (within 5 years)
\nwhen it again fell by 50% (vide Kemp & Kemp’s Tables).
\n‘Conventional’ figures, if they do not keep pace with
\ninflation, might indeed become ‘contemptible’.\tKemp &
\nKemp point out that an award of 16000 in 1879 would be
\nabout 500,000 in 1982.\tAfter Walker’s case (supra),
\ncourts in England are carefully adjusting awards for ‘pain
\nand suffering’ and ‘loss of amenities’ to keep pace with
\ninflation.”\n<\/p>\n
Further, the Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala in
\nValiyakathodi Mohammed Koya v. Ayyappankadu Ramamoorthi
\nMohan and others [1991 ACJ 140] considered the principles of
\nassessment of compensation for deprivation of amenities of life in a
\ncase where an injured boy aged 12 years suffered brain damage
\nbecause of the accident and has rightly pointed out that in personal
\ninjury cases there are three categories of general damages: consolatory
\ndamages, compensatory damages and damages for loss of expectation
\nof life and explained it by illustrating thus:
\n“The amputation of a hand preventing a plaintiff
\nfrom playing cricket would merit consolatory damages;
\nthe same loss preventing a man from carrying on his
\nemployment would merit compensatory damages.
\nConsolatory and compensatory damages represent
\ndifferent elements in an award for general damages for
\npersonal injuries and are exhaustive except for the third
\nhead of damages for loss of expectation of life which is
\nsui generis.”\n<\/p>\n
Thereafter, the Court observed thus:\n<\/p>\n
“The award is final. There is no procedure
\nprescribed to review the award in future which would
\nenable a substitution of real fact for estimate.  Mankind
\nis denied the privilege of knowledge of the future with
\ncertainty.  The result is so much of the award as is
\nattributed to the future loss and suffering will almost
\nsurely be liable to err.  In Lim Poh Choo v. Camden and
\nIslington Area Health Authority, 1979 ACJ 362 (CA,
\nEngland), considering the insuperable complexities of the
\nproblem, Lord Denning, MR, said that the decision
\nshould not be considered as final and it should be
\nconsidered as an interim award liable to be reviewed.
\nThe House of Lords in Lim Poh Choo v. Camden and
\nIslington Area Health Authority, 1980 ACJ 486 (HL,
\nEngland), speaking through Lord Scarman said:\n<\/p>\n
‘It is an attractive, ingenious
\nsuggestion, but, in my judgment unsound.\n<\/p>\n
For so radical a reform can be made neither
\nby judges nor by modification of rules of
\ncourt’.”\n<\/p>\n
\tIn this view of the matter, in our view, it would be difficult to
\nhold that for future medical expenses which are required to be
\nincurred by a victim, fresh award could be passed.  However, for such
\nmedical treatment, Court has to arrive at a reasonable estimate on the
\nbasis of the evidence brought on record.  In the present case, it has
\nbeen pointed out that for replacing the artificial leg every two to three
\nyears, appellant would be required to have some sort of operation and
\nalso change the artificial leg.\t At that time, the estimated expenses for
\nthis were Rs.18000\/- and the High Court has awarded the said
\namount.\t For change of artificial leg every two or three years no
\ncompensation is awarded.  Considering this aspect, if Rs.One lac is
\nawarded as an additional compensation, appellant would be in a
\nposition to meet the said expenses from the interest of the said
\namount.\t Equally it is true that the said amount is required to be
\nproperly invested on long-term basis so that recurring medical
\nexpenses could be met.\tThis principle is established in General
\nManager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum v.
\nSusamma Thomas (Mrs.) and others<\/a> [(1994) 2 SCC 176] and this
\nCourt held (in para 23) thus:\n<\/p>\n
“23.\tIn a case of compensation for death it is
\nappropriate that the Tribunals do keep in mind the
\nprinciples enunciated by this Court in Union Carbide
\nCorpn. v. Union of India<\/a> [(1991) 4 SCC 584] in the
\nmatter of appropriate investments to safeguard the feed
\nfrom being frittered away by the beneficiaries owing to
\nignorance, illiteracy and susceptibility to exploitation.  In
\nthat case approving the judgment of the Gujarat High
\nCourt in Muljibhai Ajarambhai Harijan v. United India
\nInsurance Co. Ltd., [(1982) 1 Guj. LR 756], this Court
\noffered\t the following guidelines:\n<\/p>\n
(i)\tThe Claims Tribunal should, in the case of
\nminors, invariably order the amount of
\ncompensation awarded to the minor be
\ninvested in long term fixed deposits at least
\ntill the date of the minor attaining majority.
\nThe expenses incurred by the guardian or
\nnext friend may, however, be allowed to be
\nwithdrawn;\n<\/p>\n
(ii)\tIn the case of illiterate claimants also the
\nClaims Tribunal should follow the
\nprocedure set out in (i) above, but if lump
\nsum payment is required for effecting
\npurchases of any movable or immovable
\nproperty such as, agricultural implements,
\nrickshaw, etc., to earn a living, the Tribunal
\nmay consider such a request after making
\nsure that the amount is actually spent for the
\npurpose and the demand is not a ruse to
\nwithdraw money;\n<\/p>\n
(iii)\tIn the case of semi-literate persons the
\nTribunal should ordinarily resort to the
\nprocedure set out at (i) above unless it is
\nsatisfied, for reasons to be stated in writing,
\nthat the whole or part of the amount is
\nrequired for expanding and existing business
\nor for purchasing some property as
\nmentioned in (ii) above for earning his
\nlivelihood, in which case the Tribunal will
\nensure that the amount is invested for the
\npurpose for which it is demanded and paid;\n<\/p>\n
(iv)\tIn the case of literate persons also the
\nTribunal may resort to the procedure
\nindicated in (i) above, subject to the
\nrelaxation set out in (ii) and (iii) above, if
\nhaving regard to the age, fiscal background
\nand strata of society to which the claimant
\nbelongs and such other considerations, the
\nTribunal in the larger interest of the claimant
\nand with a view to ensuring the safety of the
\ncompensation awarded to him thinks it
\nnecessary to do order;\n<\/p>\n
(v)\tIn the case of widows the Claims Tribunal
\nshould invariably follow the procedure set
\nout in (i) above;\n<\/p>\n
(vi)\tIn personal injury cases if further treatment
\nis necessary the Claims Tribunal on being
\nsatisfied about the same, which shall be
\nrecorded in writing, permit withdrawal of
\nsuch amount as is necessary for incurring
\nthe expenses for such treatment;\n<\/p>\n
(vii)\tIn all cases in which investment in long term
\nfixed deposits is made it should be on
\ncondition that the Bank will not permit any
\nloan or advance on the fixed deposit and
\ninterest on the amount invested is paid
\nmonthly directly to the claimant or his
\nguardian, as the case may be;\n<\/p>\n
(viii)\tIn all cases Tribunal should grant to the
\nclaimants liberty to apply for withdrawal in
\ncase of an emergency.  To meet with such a
\ncontingency, if the amount awarded is
\nsubstantial, the Claims Tribunal may invest
\nit in more than one Fixed Deposit so that if
\nneed be one such F.D.R. can be liquidated.”\n<\/p>\n
Further,  in Lilaben Udesing Gohel v. Oriental Insurance Co.
\nLtd. and others<\/a> [(1996) 3 SCC 608] the Court relied upon the said
\ndirections and further held that in Union Carbide Corporation’s case
\n(supra), this Court did not include the clause regarding literate
\npersons’ compensation and directed that it should be given the same
\ntreatment in case the Court found it necessary to do so to protect the
\ncompensation awarded to them.  The Court further added one
\nguideline as under:\n<\/p>\n
“We must add one further guideline to the effect
\nthat when the amount is invested in a fixed deposit, the
\nbank should invariably be directed to affix a note on the
\nfixed deposit receipt that no loan or advance should be
\ngranted on the strength of the said FDR without the
\nexpress permission of the Court\/Tribunal which ordered
\nthe deposit.  This will eliminate the practice of taking
\nloans which may be up to 80% of the amount invested
\nand thereby defeating the very purpose of the order.  We
\ndo hope that the Courts\/Tribunal in the country will not
\nsuccumb to the temptation of permitting huge
\nwithdrawals in the hope of disposing of the claim. We
\nare sure that the Courts\/Tribunals will realise their duty
\ntowards the victims of the accident so that a large part
\nof the compensation amount  is not lost to them.  The
\nvery purpose of laying down the guidelines was to ensure
\nthe safety of the amount so that the claimants do not
\nbecome victims of unscrupulous persons and unethical
\nagreements or arrangements.  We do hope our anxiety to
\nprotect the claimants from exploitation by such elements
\nwill be equally shared by the Courts\/Tribunals.”\n<\/p>\n
In the result, we allow this appeal partly and award additional
\ncompensation of Rs. One lac to the appellant.  The said amount shall
\nbe deposited by the Insurance Company with the trial Court and the
\ntrial Court is directed to invest the said amount on long term fixed
\ndeposit in a nearest nationalised bank, in the area where the appellant
\nis residing, with the condition that the bank will not permit any loan or
\nadvance and the interest on the said amount will be paid annually,
\ndirectly to the claimant till he survives.  However, on an application
\nby the appellant this condition could be modified by the Tribunal in
\nexceptional circumstances, if made out by the appellant. Finally, after
\nthe death of appellant, the amount be disbursed to his legal heirs on
\ntheir application.\n<\/p>\n
The aforesaid condition is imposed so as to see that appellant
\ndoes not find it difficult to meet periodical medical expenses as
\nrequired by him.\n<\/p>\n
Appeal is allowed accordingly.\tThere shall be no order as to
\ncosts.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Nagappa vs Gurudayal Singh & Ors on 3 December, 2002 Author: Shah Bench: M.B. Shah, B. P. Singh, H.K. Sema. CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 7989 of 2002 PETITIONER: Nagappa RESPONDENT: Gurudayal Singh & Ors. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 03\/12\/2002 BENCH: M.B. SHAH, B. P. SINGH & H.K. SEMA. JUDGMENT: J U D […]<\/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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-31953","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nNagappa vs Gurudayal Singh & Ors on 3 December, 2002 - 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\/nagappa-vs-gurudayal-singh-ors-on-3-december-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Nagappa vs Gurudayal Singh & Ors on 3 December, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nagappa-vs-gurudayal-singh-ors-on-3-december-2002\" \/>\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=\"2002-12-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-01-10T08:44:53+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=\"27 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nagappa-vs-gurudayal-singh-ors-on-3-december-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nagappa-vs-gurudayal-singh-ors-on-3-december-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Nagappa vs Gurudayal Singh & Ors on 3 December, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-12-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-10T08:44:53+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nagappa-vs-gurudayal-singh-ors-on-3-december-2002\"},\"wordCount\":5332,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nagappa-vs-gurudayal-singh-ors-on-3-december-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nagappa-vs-gurudayal-singh-ors-on-3-december-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nagappa-vs-gurudayal-singh-ors-on-3-december-2002\",\"name\":\"Nagappa vs Gurudayal Singh & Ors on 3 December, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-12-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-10T08:44:53+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nagappa-vs-gurudayal-singh-ors-on-3-december-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nagappa-vs-gurudayal-singh-ors-on-3-december-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nagappa-vs-gurudayal-singh-ors-on-3-december-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Nagappa vs Gurudayal Singh & Ors on 3 December, 2002\"}]},{\"@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":"Nagappa vs Gurudayal Singh & Ors on 3 December, 2002 - 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\/nagappa-vs-gurudayal-singh-ors-on-3-december-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Nagappa vs Gurudayal Singh & Ors on 3 December, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nagappa-vs-gurudayal-singh-ors-on-3-december-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-12-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-01-10T08:44:53+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":"27 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nagappa-vs-gurudayal-singh-ors-on-3-december-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nagappa-vs-gurudayal-singh-ors-on-3-december-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Nagappa vs Gurudayal Singh & Ors on 3 December, 2002","datePublished":"2002-12-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-10T08:44:53+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nagappa-vs-gurudayal-singh-ors-on-3-december-2002"},"wordCount":5332,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nagappa-vs-gurudayal-singh-ors-on-3-december-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nagappa-vs-gurudayal-singh-ors-on-3-december-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nagappa-vs-gurudayal-singh-ors-on-3-december-2002","name":"Nagappa vs Gurudayal Singh & Ors on 3 December, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-12-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-10T08:44:53+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nagappa-vs-gurudayal-singh-ors-on-3-december-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nagappa-vs-gurudayal-singh-ors-on-3-december-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nagappa-vs-gurudayal-singh-ors-on-3-december-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Nagappa vs Gurudayal Singh & Ors on 3 December, 2002"}]},{"@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\/31953","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=31953"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/31953\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=31953"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=31953"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=31953"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}