{"id":55142,"date":"2009-04-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-04-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vasdev-ors-vs-dtc-ors-on-20-april-2009"},"modified":"2015-09-03T22:52:17","modified_gmt":"2015-09-03T17:22:17","slug":"vasdev-ors-vs-dtc-ors-on-20-april-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vasdev-ors-vs-dtc-ors-on-20-april-2009","title":{"rendered":"Vasdev & Ors vs Dtc & Ors. on 20 April, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court<\/div>\n
Vasdev & Ors vs Dtc & Ors. on 20 April, 2009<\/div>\n
Author: Kailash Gambhir<\/div>\n
      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI\n\n                   FAO No. 499\/1999\n\n                            Judgment reserved on: 7.3.2008.\n                            Judgment delivered on:20.4.2009\n\nVasdev & Ors.                       ..... Appellants.\n                       Through: Mr. O P Mannie, Adv.\n\n\n\n                       versus\n\nDTC & Ors.\n                                      ..... Respondents\n                       Through: Shri J N Aggarwal, Adv.\n\n     CORAM:\n\n      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR,\n\n1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may               No\n   be allowed to see the judgment?\n\n2. To be referred to Reporter or not?                      No\n\n3. Whether the judgment should be reported\n   in the Digest?                                          No\n\n\nKAILASH GAMBHIR, J.\n<\/pre>\n
1.    The present appeal arises out of the award dated 21.7.1999<\/p>\n
of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whereby the Tribunal<\/p>\n
FAO No. 499\/1999                                        Page 1 of 8<\/span>
\n awarded a sum of Rs. 72000\/- along with interest @ 12% per<\/p>\n
annum to the claimants.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
2.    The brief conspectus of the facts is as follows:<\/p>\n
3.    On 10.3.1989 deceased Joginder alias Palli alongwith his<\/p>\n
friend Sanjay Arora had gone to M\/s. Competent Motors, Mundka<\/p>\n
Delhi in order to get their Maruti car bearing registration No. DDC<\/p>\n
6637 serviced. In the meanwhile, a bus bearing registration No.<\/p>\n
DEP 9939 came from Bahadur Garh side in a rash and negligent<\/p>\n
manner and hit deceased Joginder who fell down on the ground<\/p>\n
and became unconscious and succumbed to the injuries on the<\/p>\n
same day.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
4.    A claim petition was filed on 31.7.1989 and an award was<\/p>\n
passed      on     21.7.1999.   Aggrieved   with   the   said     award<\/p>\n
enhancement is claimed by way of the present appeal.<\/p>\n
5.    Sh. O P Mannie, counsel for the appellants contended that<\/p>\n
the tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the deceased at<\/p>\n
Rs. 864\/-\/- per month whereas after looking at the facts and<\/p>\n
circumstances of the case the tribunal should have assessed the<\/p>\n
FAO No. 499\/1999                                                Page 2 of 8<\/span>
\n income of the deceased at Rs. 2541\/- per month. The counsel<\/p>\n
submitted that the tribunal erroneously applied the multiplier of<\/p>\n
10 while computing compensation when according to the facts<\/p>\n
and circumstances of the case multiplier of 15 should have been<\/p>\n
applied. It was urged by the counsel that the tribunal erred in not<\/p>\n
considering future prospects while computing compensation as it<\/p>\n
failed to appreciate that the deceased would have earned much<\/p>\n
more in near future as he was of 22 yrs of age only and would<\/p>\n
have lived for another 40-50 yrs had she not met with the<\/p>\n
accident. It was also alleged by the counsel that the tribunal did<\/p>\n
not consider the fact that due to high rates of inflation the<\/p>\n
deceased would have earned much more in near future and the<\/p>\n
tribunal also failed in appreciating the fact that even the<\/p>\n
minimum wages are revised twice in an year and hence, the<\/p>\n
deceased would have earned much more in her life span.<\/p>\n
6.    Shri J N Aggarwal, counsel for the respondents submitted<\/p>\n
that the award passed by the ld. Tribunal is just and fair and<\/p>\n
requires no interference by this court.\n<\/p>\n
FAO No. 499\/1999                                          Page 3 of 8<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
 7.    I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused<\/p>\n
the record.\n<\/p>\n
8.    Appellant No:1 examined himself as PW-3 and deposed that<\/p>\n
deceased was his only son who died in a road side accident. He<\/p>\n
further deposed that the deceased was a property dealer by<\/p>\n
profession and was earning Rs, 3,000\/- per month. He used to<\/p>\n
give his entire salary for household expenses.<\/p>\n
9.    The appellants claimants had not brought on record any<\/p>\n
documentary evidence relating to the income of the deceased.<\/p>\n
After considering I am of the view that the tribunal has not erred<\/p>\n
in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.864\/- p.m. in<\/p>\n
accordance with the Minimum Wages Act.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
10.   It is no more res integra that mere bald assertions regarding<\/p>\n
the income of the deceased are of no help to the claimants in the<\/p>\n
absence of any reliable evidence being brought on record.<\/p>\n
11.   The thumb rule is that in the absence of clear and cogent<\/p>\n
evidence pertaining to income of the deceased learned Tribunal<\/p>\n
should determine income of the deceased on the basis of the<\/p>\n
minimum wages notified under the Minimum Wages Act.<\/p>\n
FAO No. 499\/1999                                          Page 4 of 8<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
 12.   Therefore, no interference is made in relation to income of<\/p>\n
the deceased by this court.\n<\/p>\n
13.   As regards the future prospects, a perusal of the minimum<\/p>\n
wages notified under the Minimum Wages Act show that to<\/p>\n
neutralize increase in inflation and cost of living, minimum wages<\/p>\n
virtually double after every 10 years. For instance, minimum<\/p>\n
wages of skilled labourers as on 1.1.1980 was Rs. 320\/- per<\/p>\n
month and same rose to Rs. 1,083\/- per month in the year 1990.<\/p>\n
Meaning thereby, from year 1980 to year 1990, there there has<\/p>\n
been an increase of nearly 238% in the minimum wages. Thus, it<\/p>\n
could safely be assumed that income of the deceased would have<\/p>\n
doubled in the next 10 years. Therefore, the Tribunal committed<\/p>\n
an error in not considering the same. Thus, the award is modified<\/p>\n
to this extent.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
14.   As regards the contention of the counsel for the appellant<\/p>\n
that the 1\/3 deduction made by the tribunal are on the higher<\/p>\n
side as the deceased is survived by his aged parents. In catena of<\/p>\n
cases the Apex Court has in similar circumstances made 1\/3 rd<\/p>\n
deductions. Therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the<\/p>\n
award on this ground.\n<\/p>\n
\nFAO No. 499\/1999                                         Page 5 of 8<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
 15.   As regards the contention of the counsel for the appellant<\/p>\n
that the tribunal has erred in applying the multiplier of 10 in the<\/p>\n
facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that the tribunal has<\/p>\n
committed error. This case pertains to the year 1989 and at that<\/p>\n
time II schedule to the Motor Vehicles act was not brought on the<\/p>\n
statute books. The said schedule came on the statute book in the<\/p>\n
year 1994 and prior to 1994 the law of the land was as laid down<\/p>\n
by the Hon’ble Apex Court in 1994 SCC (Cri) 335, G.M., Kerala<\/p>\n
SRTC v. Susamma Thomas. In the<\/a> said judgment it was<\/p>\n
observed by the Court that maximum multiplier of 16 could be<\/p>\n
applied by the Courts, which after coming in to force of the II<\/p>\n
schedule has risen to 18. The deceased was of 22 years at the<\/p>\n
time of the accident and is survived by hyis aged parents of 50<\/p>\n
and 42 years. In the facts of the present case I am of the view<\/p>\n
that after looking at the age of the claimants and the deceased<\/p>\n
and after considering applicable multiplier under Motor Vehicles<\/p>\n
Act and taking a balanced view the multiplier of 11 shall be<\/p>\n
applicable.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
16.   On the contention regarding that the tribunal has erred in<\/p>\n
not granting compensation towards loss of love & affection,<\/p>\n
FAO No. 499\/1999                                          Page 6 of 8<\/span>
\n funeral expenses, loss of estate, and the loss of services, which<\/p>\n
were being rendered by the deceased to the appellants. In this<\/p>\n
regard compensation towards loss of love and affection is<\/p>\n
awarded at Rs. 20,000\/-; compensation towards funeral expenses<\/p>\n
is awarded at Rs. 10,000\/- and compensation towards loss of<\/p>\n
estate is awarded at Rs. 10,000\/-.\n<\/p>\n
17.   As far as the contention pertaining to the awarding of<\/p>\n
amount towards mental pain and sufferings caused to the<\/p>\n
appellants due to the sudden demise of their only son and the<\/p>\n
loss of services, which were being rendered by the deceased to<\/p>\n
the appellants is concerned, I do not feel inclined to award any<\/p>\n
amount as compensation towards the same as the same are not<\/p>\n
conventional heads of damages.\n<\/p>\n
18.   Therefore,   compensation      towards   loss   of   dependency<\/p>\n
comes to Rs. 1,14,048\/- (864 x 3\/2 x 2\/3 x 12 x 11).<\/p>\n
19.   After considering Rs. 40,000\/-, which is granted towards non<\/p>\n
pecuniary damages, the total compensation comes out as Rs.<\/p>\n
1,54,048\/-.\n<\/p>\n
FAO No. 499\/1999                                              Page 7 of 8<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
 20.   In view of the above discussion, the total compensation is<\/p>\n
enhanced to Rs. 1,54,048\/- from Rs. 72,000\/- with interest @<\/p>\n
7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till<\/p>\n
realisation and the same should be paid to the appellants by the<\/p>\n
respondents in equal proportion.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
21.   With the above direction, the present appeal is disposed of.<\/p>\n
20.4.2009                             KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.\n\n\n\n\nFAO No. 499\/1999                                          Page 8 of 8<\/span>\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court Vasdev & Ors vs Dtc & Ors. on 20 April, 2009 Author: Kailash Gambhir IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI FAO No. 499\/1999 Judgment reserved on: 7.3.2008. Judgment delivered on:20.4.2009 Vasdev & Ors. ….. Appellants. Through: Mr. O P Mannie, Adv. versus DTC & Ors. ….. Respondents Through: Shri […]<\/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":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-55142","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nVasdev & Ors vs Dtc & Ors. on 20 April, 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\/vasdev-ors-vs-dtc-ors-on-20-april-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Vasdev & Ors vs Dtc & Ors. on 20 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vasdev-ors-vs-dtc-ors-on-20-april-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=\"2009-04-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-09-03T17:22:17+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vasdev-ors-vs-dtc-ors-on-20-april-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vasdev-ors-vs-dtc-ors-on-20-april-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Vasdev & Ors vs Dtc & Ors. on 20 April, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-04-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-03T17:22:17+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vasdev-ors-vs-dtc-ors-on-20-april-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1228,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Delhi High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vasdev-ors-vs-dtc-ors-on-20-april-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vasdev-ors-vs-dtc-ors-on-20-april-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vasdev-ors-vs-dtc-ors-on-20-april-2009\",\"name\":\"Vasdev & Ors vs Dtc & Ors. on 20 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-04-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-03T17:22:17+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vasdev-ors-vs-dtc-ors-on-20-april-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vasdev-ors-vs-dtc-ors-on-20-april-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vasdev-ors-vs-dtc-ors-on-20-april-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Vasdev & Ors vs Dtc & Ors. on 20 April, 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":"Vasdev & Ors vs Dtc & Ors. on 20 April, 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\/vasdev-ors-vs-dtc-ors-on-20-april-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Vasdev & Ors vs Dtc & Ors. on 20 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vasdev-ors-vs-dtc-ors-on-20-april-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-04-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-09-03T17:22:17+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vasdev-ors-vs-dtc-ors-on-20-april-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vasdev-ors-vs-dtc-ors-on-20-april-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Vasdev & Ors vs Dtc & Ors. on 20 April, 2009","datePublished":"2009-04-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-03T17:22:17+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vasdev-ors-vs-dtc-ors-on-20-april-2009"},"wordCount":1228,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Delhi High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vasdev-ors-vs-dtc-ors-on-20-april-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vasdev-ors-vs-dtc-ors-on-20-april-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vasdev-ors-vs-dtc-ors-on-20-april-2009","name":"Vasdev & Ors vs Dtc & Ors. on 20 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-04-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-03T17:22:17+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vasdev-ors-vs-dtc-ors-on-20-april-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vasdev-ors-vs-dtc-ors-on-20-april-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vasdev-ors-vs-dtc-ors-on-20-april-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Vasdev & Ors vs Dtc & Ors. on 20 April, 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\/55142","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=55142"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/55142\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=55142"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=55142"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=55142"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}