{"id":35078,"date":"2008-07-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-07-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-vs-hansaben-on-3-july-2008"},"modified":"2018-02-18T20:30:22","modified_gmt":"2018-02-18T15:00:22","slug":"national-vs-hansaben-on-3-july-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-vs-hansaben-on-3-july-2008","title":{"rendered":"National vs Hansaben on 3 July, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
National vs Hansaben on 3 July, 2008<\/div>\n
Author: A.M.Kapadia,&Nbsp;Honourable Mr.Justice H.Shukla,&Nbsp;<\/div>\n
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nFA\/686\/2003\t 14\/ 14\tJUDGMENT\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nFIRST\nAPPEAL NO. 686 OF 2003\n \n\n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE A.M.KAPADIA \n\n \n\n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE R.H.SHUKLA\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\n\t\t\tbe referred 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\nNATIONAL\nINSURANCE CO. LTD. - Appellant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nHANSABEN\n LILESHKUMAR PATEL & ORS. - Respondent(s)\n \n\n======================================Appearance\n: \nMs. Megha Jani for\nAppellant(s). \nMr. Mehul S. Shah for Respondent(s) : 1 - 4. \nNone\nfor Respondent(s) : 5 - 9. \nMr. Shalin Mehta for Respondent(s) :\n10. \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\t \n\n \n\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n                            and\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n \n\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE R.H.SHUKLA\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 03\/07\/2008 \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n
(Per
\n: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.H.SHUKLA)<\/p>\n
\t\tThe
\npresent appeal has been filed by the appellant-Insurance Company
\nchallenging the judgement and award dated 24th July, 2002
\npassed in M.A.C.P. No.149 of 1994 by the Motor Accident Claims
\nTribunal (Auxiliary), Kachchh at Bhuj (?Sthe Tribunal?? for short),
\nawarding the compensation to the tune of Rs.9,45,000\/- together with
\ninterest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the petition
\ntill deposit with proportionate costs to the heirs of the deceased
\nLileshkumar Nanalal Patel.\n<\/p>\n
2.\t\tThe
\nfacts of the case briefly stated that that the deceased Lileshkumar
\nwas a taxi operator and on 2nd January, 1994, he was going
\nfrom Bhuj to Dayapar with the car bearing Registration No.
\nGJ-12-U-1559 with the passengers travelling in the said taxi. The
\ndeceased was driving the taxi on the left side of the road with
\nmoderate speed. When the deceased reached near the Water Supply Tank
\nbetween Ravapar and Matana Madh on Bhuj-Lakhpat road, respondent
\nNo.5-original opponent No.1 came with his tanker bearing Registration
\nNo. GJ-12-T-6502 in a rash and negligent manner with full speed. It
\nwas also the case of the claimants that respondent No.5-driver of the
\noffending tanker lost control over the tanker and it went on the
\nwrong side of the road and collided with the taxi, resulting into the
\nunfortunate accident, as a result of which, the deceased sustained
\nserious injuries and ultimately, succumbed to them. Therefore, the
\nheirs of the deceased filed M.A.C.P. No.149 of 1994 for the untimely
\ndeath of the deceased in the vehicular accident claiming the
\ncompensation of Rs.15 Lakhs.\n<\/p>\n
2.1\t\tIt
\nwas contended that at the time of the accident, the deceased was
\nearning Rs.4,000\/- per month by plying the taxi; the deceased was
\naged about 27 years and was hale and hearty and therefore, it was
\nprayed to pass the award of Rs.15 Lakhs together with interest and
\ncosts thereon in favour of the claimants.\n<\/p>\n
2.2\t\tThe
\nopponent-Insurance Company contested the claim petition by filing the
\nwritten statement on all counts and denied the factum and manner of
\nthe accident as well as income of the deceased and ultimately, prayed
\nto dismiss the petition.\n<\/p>\n
2.3\t\tOn
\nbasis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the issues
\nand after considering the oral as well as documentary evidence
\nadduced and produced by the parties and also considering the
\nsubmissions advanced by the learned Advocates appearing for the
\nparties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was
\nthe result of rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent
\nNo.5 (original opponent No.1) ?  driver of the offending tanker. The
\nTribunal has considered the income of the deceased at Rs.4,000\/- and
\nalso for future income for the purpose of dependency benefit, the
\ndatum figure was taken at Rs.6,000\/- per month i.e. Rs.72,000\/- per
\nannum. Thereafter, the Tribunal, applying the multiplier of 18,
\nawarded Rs.12,96,000\/- towards dependency benefits, out of which
\n1\/3rd was deducted towards personal expenses. Therefore,
\nthe Tribunal awarded the net dependency benefit available to the
\nclaimants at Rs.8,64,000\/-. Further, an amount of Rs.15,000\/- towards
\npain, shock and suffering, Rs.15,000\/- towards loss of estate,
\nRs.5,000\/- towards funeral ceremony and  Rs.46,000\/- towards damages
\nto the taxi were awarded. The Tribunal, therefore, partly allowed the
\nclaim petition awarding Rs.9,45,000\/- to the heirs of the deceased.\n<\/p>\n
2.4\t\tIt
\nis this judgement which has been challenged in the present appeal
\nunder the provisions of Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.\n<\/p>\n
3.\t\tMs.\n<\/p>\n
Megha, Jani, learned Advocate for the appellant, has contended that
\nthe Tribunal has materially erred in appreciating the evidence on
\nrecord while arriving at the quantum of compensation and has awarded
\nthe amount of compensation on higher side. She contended that the
\nTribunal has erred in considering the prospective income for the
\npurpose of dependency benefit and\/or  arriving at the datum figure
\nand has wrongly taken the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000\/- per
\nmonth. It has also been contended that the Tribunal has adopted the
\nmultiplier of 18 which is also on higher side. She, therefore,
\nsubmitted that the impugned judgement and award accordingly deserves
\nto be modified.\n<\/p>\n
4.\t\tPer
\ncontra Mr. Mehul Shah, learned Advocate for the respondent Nos.1
\nto 4,original claimants, contended that the impugned judgement and
\naward does not call for any interference of this Court as the
\nTribunal has rightly arrived at the dependency benefit considering
\nthe future prospective income of the deceased. He submitted that the
\ndeceased was plying the taxi and his income was Rs.4,000\/- per month
\nand therefore, considering the young age of about 27 years of the
\ndeceased and future prospectives, the Tribunal has arrived at the
\ndatum figure for the purpose of dependency benefit at Rs.6,000\/- per
\nmonth, i.e. Rs.72,000\/- per annum and has adopted the multiplier of
\n18, which is just and proper. He also submitted that while making the
\naward, the Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards the loss of
\nconsortium. Therefore, the award is just and proper and does not call
\nfor any interference. He, therefore, urges to dismiss the appeal.\n<\/p>\n
5.\t\tWe
\nhave considered the submissions advanced by Ms. Megha Jani, learned
\nAdvocate for the appellant-Insurance Company, and Mr. Mehul Shah,
\nlearned Advocate for the respondent Nos.1 to 4 – original claimants.
\nWe have also perused the judgement and award as well as oral and
\ndocumentary evidence supplied by the learned Advocates appearing for
\nthe parties during the course of submissions.\n<\/p>\n
6.\t\tIt
\nis not in dispute that the appellant has not challenged the finding
\nof the Tribunal on the aspect of negligence of the driver of the
\noffending tanker. Therefore, we do not deem it expedient to examine
\non this aspect.\n<\/p>\n
7.\t\tThe
\nonly aspect, which is now required to be addressed, is the quantum of
\ncompensation. Therefore,  the rival submissions made as regards the
\nincome of the deceased, including the prospective income assessed by
\nthe Tribunal for the purpose of dependency benefit, are required to
\nbe appreciated. As discussed and reflected in the judgement and award
\nof the Tribunal, the deceased was earning Rs.4,000\/- at the time of
\nthe accident. Therefore, considering the guidelines laid down by the
\nDivision Bench of this Court in
\nthe case of  Smt. Rafia Sultan vs. O.N.G.C.,
\nreported in  19 85 (2) GLR 1315,
\nthe present income is required to be doubled for
\nconsideration of the future prospective and taking the average
\nthereof, the datum figure for the dependency benefit would come at
\nRs.6,000\/- per month, i.e. Rs.72,000\/- per annum. Out of this amount,
\none third is required to be deducted towards upkeeps and personal
\nexpenses to be incurred by the deceased as he was a married man. The
\nnet dependency benefit would, therefore, come to Rs.48,000\/-  per
\nannum. Therefore, the only point which is required to be focused is
\napplying proper multiplier.\n<\/p>\n
8.\t\tThe
\nHonourable Apex Court, in the case of  G.M. Kerala State Road
\nTransport Corporation vs. Susamma Thomas,<\/a> reported in
\n 1994 ACJ 1,  elucidating on the aspect of
\ncompensation and the method for arriving at the dependency benefits,
\nhas made the observations and quoted the principle enunciated under
\nthe Fatal Accidents Act of 1846 and 1976. It has been quoted from the
\njudgement in the case of  Davies vs. Powell,
\n (1942) AC 601 at page 609 as under:\n<\/p>\n
?SLord
\nWright in the same case said: The actual pecuniary loss of each
\nindividual entitled to sue can only be ascertained by balancing, on
\nthe one hand, the loss to him of the future pecuniary benefit, and,
\non the other, any pecuniary advantage which from whatever source
\ncomes to him by reason of the death.??\n<\/p>\n
8.1\t\tThe
\nwords of Lord Wright have been adopted and quoted as the principle
\napplicable also under the Indian laws in  Gobald Motor
\nService Ltd. vs. R.M.K.Veluswami,<\/a>  1958-65 ACJ 179 (SC),
\nwhere the Supreme Court has briefly observed  as under:\n<\/p>\n
?Sthe
\ngeneral principle is that the actual pecuniary loss can be
\nascertained only by balancing, on the one hand, the loss to the
\nclaimants of the future pecuniary benefit and, on the other, any
\npecuniary advantage which from whatever source comes to them by
\nreason of the death, that is, the balance of loss and gain to a
\ndependent by the death must be ascertained.??\n<\/p>\n
8.2\t\tThe
\nApex Court has discussed, elaborating on this aspect and this
\nprinciple that as to how the dependency of the multiplicand could be
\nadopted or arrived at, and has also quoted from  Halsbury’s
\nLaws of England in  Vol.34,  para-98,
\n again emphasising the same principle as under:\n<\/p>\n
?S(98)
\nAssessment of damages under the Fatal Accident Act, 1976 – The courts
\nhave evolved a method for calculating the amount of pecuniary benefit
\nthat dependants could reasonably expect to have received from the
\ndeceased in the future. First the annual value to the dependants of
\nthose benefits (the multiplicand) is assessed. In the ordinary case
\nof the death of a wage-earner that figure is arrived at by deducting
\nfrom the wages the estimated amount of his own personal and living
\nexpenses.\n<\/p>\n
The
\nassessment is split into two parts. The first part comprises damages
\nfor the period between death and trial. The multiplicand is
\nmultiplied by the number of years which have elapsed between those
\ntwo dates. Interest at one-half the short-term investment rate is
\nalso awarded on that multiplicand. The second part is damages for the
\nperiod from the trial onwards. For that period, the number of years
\nwhich have based on the number of years that the expectancy would
\nprobably have lasted; central to that calculation is the probable
\nlength of the deceased’s working life at the date of death.”\n<\/p>\n
\t\tFurther,
\nas to the multiplier, Halsbury states that:\n<\/p>\n
“However,
\nthe multiplier is a figure considerably less than the number of years
\ntaken as the duration of the expectancy. Since the dependants can
\ninvest their damages, the lump sum award in respect of future loss
\nmust be discounted to reflect their receipt of interest on invested
\nfunds, the intention being that the dependants will each year draw
\ninterest and some capital (the interest element decreasing and the
\ncapital drawings increasing with the passage of years), so that they
\nare compensated each year for their annual loss, and the fund will be
\nexhausted at the age which the court assesses to be the correct age,
\nhaving regard to all contingencies. The contingencies of life such as
\nillness, disability and unemployment have to be taken into account.
\nActuarial evidence is admissible, but the courts do not encourage
\nsuch evidence. ?S<\/p>\n
8.3\t\tThe
\nHonourable Apex Court, in this very judgement in the case of Susamma
\nThomas (supra), has discussed that though the method
\nof multiplier is logically sound and legally well established, but,
\nthe calculation referring to the age of the deceased at the time of
\nthe accident and the expected life of years and adopting the higher
\nmultiplier has been disapproved.\n<\/p>\n
8.4\t\tIn
\nthis very judgement, the Apex Court has also observed  in paragraph 7
\nthat:\n<\/p>\n
?S7.\tThe
\nassessment of damages to compensate the dependants is beset with
\ndifficulties because from the nature of things, it has to take into
\naccount any imponderables, e.g., the life expectancy of the deceased
\nand the dependants, the amount that the deceased would have earned
\nduring the remainder of his life, the amount that he would have
\ncontributed to the dependants during that period, the chances that
\nthe deceased may not have lived or the dependants may not live up to
\nthe estimated remaining period of their life expectancy, the chances
\nthat the deceased might have got better employment or income or might
\nhave lost his employment or income together.\n<\/p>\n
The
\nmanner of arriving at the damages is to ascertain the net income of
\nthe deceased available for the support of himself and his dependants,
\nand to deduct therefrom such part of his income as the deceased was
\naccustomed to spend upon himself, as regards both self-maintenance
\nand pleasure, and to ascertain what part of his net income the
\ndeceased was accustomed to spend for the benefit of the dependants.
\nThen that should be capitalised by multiplying it by a figure
\nrepresenting the proper number of year’s purchase.\n<\/p>\n
Much
\nof the calculation necessarily remains in the realm of hypothesis
\n‘and in that region arithmetic is a good servant but a bad master’
\nsince there are so often many imponderables. In every case ‘it is the
\noverall picture that matters’, and the court must try to assess as
\nbest as it can the loss suffered.??\n<\/p>\n
8.5\t\tFurther,
\nthis very judgement and the principle referred to has been followed
\nin the subsequent judgements, including in the judgement in the case
\nof  Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs.
\nJashuben & Ors., reported in  2008
\n(2) SCALE 474. The Honourable Apex Court in this
\njudgement in paragraph 13 has observed as under:\n<\/p>\n
?SThe
\namount of compensation indisputably should be determined having
\nregard to the pecuniary loss caused to the dependents by reason of
\nthe death of the victim. It was necessary to consider the earnings of
\nthe deceased at the time of the accident. Of course, further prospect
\nis not out of bound for such consideration. But the same should be
\nfounded on some legal principle.??\n<\/p>\n
8.6\t\tFurther,
\nreferring to the judgement and quoting from the judgement in the case
\nof Susamma Thomas (supra), the Honourable Apex
\nCourt has again made the observations in paragraph 14 as under:\n<\/p>\n
?S14.\tIn
\nGeneral Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivendrum
\nvs. Susamma Thomas<\/a> [(1994) 2 SCC 176], this Court held:\n<\/p>\n
The
\nmultiplier method involves the ascertainment of the loss of
\ndependency or the multiplicand having regard to the circumstances of
\nthe case and capitalizing the multiplicand by an appropriate
\nmultiplier. The choice of the multiplier is determined by the age of
\nthe deceased (or that of the claimants whichever is higher) and by
\nthe calculation as to what capital sum, if invested at a rate of
\ninterest appropriate to a stable economy, would yield the
\nmultiplicand by way of annual interest. In ascertaining this, regard
\nshould also be had to the fact that ultimately the capital sum should
\nalso be consumed-up over the period for which the dependency is
\nexpected to last.??\n<\/p>\n
\t\tNot
\nonly that, in the case of Oriental Insurance Company vs.
\nJashuben & Ors. (supra), the Honourable Apex Court
\nhas also referred to other judgements, including the observations
\nmade in paragraph 18 in the judgement in the case of  T.N.
\nState Transport Corporation Ltd. vs. S. Rajapriya & Ors.,
\nreported in  (2005) 6 SCC 236,
\nand in the case of
\n U.P. State Road Transport Corporation vs. Krishna Bala &
\nOrs., reported in  (2006) 6 SCC 249,
\nand observed as to how the multiplier method should be referred and
\nin the case of the deceased aged about 36 years, the multiplier of 13
\nwas found to be just and proper.\n<\/p>\n
8.7\t\tAs
\nregards calculation of the dependency benefit arrived at on the basis
\nof the income, the Honourable Apex Court, in the case of Oriental
\nInsurance Company vs. Jashuben & Ors. (supra), has
\nalso referred to the case of  Sarla Dixit & Anr. vs.
\nBalwant Yadav & Ors.,<\/a> reported in
\n (1996) 3 SCC 179, and observed as to how the
\nincome could be arrived at. Thus, the principles\/guidelines laid down
\nby the Honourable Apex Court have been followed consistently as
\nregards future prospective income as well as multiplier for the
\npurpose of arriving at the dependency loss.\n<\/p>\n
9.\t\tIn
\nlight of the observations made by the Honourable Apex Court in the
\njudgements reported in the case of Susamma Thomas
\n(supra) and Oriental Insurance Company vs. Jashuben &
\nOrs. (supra), the maximum multiplier that can be
\nawarded for arriving at the dependency benefit is 15. Therefore,
\nthough the submissions have been made by Mr. Shah, learned Advocate
\nfor the claimants, that the deceased was aged about 27 years at the
\ntime of the accident, considering his young age and in light of the
\nobservations made by the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgement, we
\ndeem it proper that the maximum multiplier of 15 can be adopted.
\nTherefore, the net dependency benefit would come to Rs.48,000\/- x 15
\n= Rs.7,20,000\/-. At the same time, as rightly pointed out by the
\nlearned Advocate, Mr. Shah, no award has been made for the loss of
\nconsortium, which is required to be awarded.\n<\/p>\n
\t\tTherefore,
\nas the Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards the loss of
\nconsortium, without going into much details, we propose to modify the
\naward by rounding off the award amount to Rs.8,16,000\/- instead of
\nRs.9,45,000\/- as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t\tRs.7,20,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
\tTowards loss of dependency benefits<\/p>\n
\t\tRs.\n<\/p>\n
  15,000\/- \tTowards pain shock and suffering<\/p>\n
\t\tRs.\n<\/p>\n
  15,000\/- \tTowards loss of estate<\/p>\n
\t\tRs.\n<\/p>\n
  15,000\/- \tTowards the loss of consortium<\/p>\n
\t\tRs.\n<\/p>\n
    5,000\/- \tTowards funeral expenses<\/p>\n
\t\tRs.\n<\/p>\n
  46,000\/- \tTowards damages to the taxi<\/p>\n
\t\t——————\n<\/p>\n
\t\tRs.8,16,000\/-\tTotal<\/p>\n
\t\tAccordingly,
\nthe present appeal deserves to be allowed.\n<\/p>\n
10.\t\tTherefore,
\nRs.8,16,000\/- is awarded as the total amount of compensation to the
\nclaimant instead of Rs.9,45,000\/-. Accordingly, the claimants would
\nbe entitled to the compensation of Rs.8,16,000\/- instead of
\nRs.9,45,000\/-.\n<\/p>\n
11.\t\tFor
\nthe foregoing reasons, the appeal succeeds in part and is partly
\nallowed with no order as to costs. The impugned judgement and award
\ndated 24th July, 2002 passed by the Motor Accident Claims
\nTribunal (Auxiliary), Kachchh at Bhuj in M.A.C.P. No.149 of 1994,
\nawarding compensation of Rs.9,45,000\/-, is hereby modified by
\nawarding total compensation of Rs.8,16,000\/- instead of Rs.9,45,000\/-
\ntogether with interest at the  rate of 9% per annum from the date of
\nthe petition till the date of realisation with proportionate costs
\nthereon. Rest of the directions contained in the impugned judgement
\nand award are not disturbed and maintained.\n<\/p>\n
12.\t\tAt
\nthis stage, it is stated by Ms. Megha Jani, learned Advocate for the
\nappellant, that in compliance of the impugned award, the
\nappellant-Insurance Company has deposited the entire amount of
\ncompensation together with interest and costs thereon with the
\nTribunal. She requested that as this Court has modified the award,
\nthe excess amount of Rs.1.29 Lakh may be ordered to be refunded out
\nof the amount lying deposited with the Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n
13.\t\tIn
\nview of the above,  the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary),
\nKachchh at Bhuj is directed to refund the amount of Rs.1.29 Lakh out
\nof the amount lying with it along with the interest accrued thereon.\n<\/p>\n
\t\tAward
\nbe drawn accordingly.\n<\/p>\n
[A.\n<\/p>\n
M. Kapadia,  J.]<\/p>\n
[R.\n<\/p>\n
H. Shukla, J.]<\/p>\n
kamlesh*<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court National vs Hansaben on 3 July, 2008 Author: A.M.Kapadia,&Nbsp;Honourable Mr.Justice H.Shukla,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print FA\/686\/2003 14\/ 14 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL NO. 686 OF 2003 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.KAPADIA HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.H.SHUKLA ====================================== 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-35078","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nNational vs Hansaben on 3 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-vs-hansaben-on-3-july-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"National vs Hansaben on 3 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-vs-hansaben-on-3-july-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-07-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-02-18T15:00:22+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\\\/national-vs-hansaben-on-3-july-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/national-vs-hansaben-on-3-july-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"National vs Hansaben on 3 July, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-18T15:00:22+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/national-vs-hansaben-on-3-july-2008\"},\"wordCount\":3071,\"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\\\/national-vs-hansaben-on-3-july-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/national-vs-hansaben-on-3-july-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/national-vs-hansaben-on-3-july-2008\",\"name\":\"National vs Hansaben on 3 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-18T15:00:22+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/national-vs-hansaben-on-3-july-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/national-vs-hansaben-on-3-july-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/national-vs-hansaben-on-3-july-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"National vs Hansaben on 3 July, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"National vs Hansaben on 3 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-vs-hansaben-on-3-july-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"National vs Hansaben on 3 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-vs-hansaben-on-3-july-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-07-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-02-18T15:00:22+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\/national-vs-hansaben-on-3-july-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-vs-hansaben-on-3-july-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"National vs Hansaben on 3 July, 2008","datePublished":"2008-07-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-18T15:00:22+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-vs-hansaben-on-3-july-2008"},"wordCount":3071,"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\/national-vs-hansaben-on-3-july-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-vs-hansaben-on-3-july-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-vs-hansaben-on-3-july-2008","name":"National vs Hansaben on 3 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-07-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-18T15:00:22+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-vs-hansaben-on-3-july-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-vs-hansaben-on-3-july-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-vs-hansaben-on-3-july-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"National vs Hansaben on 3 July, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/35078","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=35078"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/35078\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=35078"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=35078"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=35078"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}