{"id":62619,"date":"2008-09-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-09-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/oriental-vs-pahadbhai-on-24-september-2008"},"modified":"2015-08-03T14:57:40","modified_gmt":"2015-08-03T09:27:40","slug":"oriental-vs-pahadbhai-on-24-september-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/oriental-vs-pahadbhai-on-24-september-2008","title":{"rendered":"Oriental vs Pahadbhai on 24 September, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Oriental vs Pahadbhai on 24 September, 2008<\/div>\n
Author: H.K.Rathod,&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\/3855\/2008\t 11\/ 11\tORDER \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nFIRST\nAPPEAL No. 3855 of 2008\n \n\nWith\n\n\n \n\nCIVIL\nAPPLICATION No. 9835 of 2008\n \n\n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\nORIENTAL\nINSURANCE CO LTD - Appellant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nPAHADBHAI\nLAKHABHAI PARMAR & 2 - Defendant(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nKK NAIR for\nAppellant(s) : 1, \nNone for Defendant(s) : 1 -\n3. \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE H.K.RATHOD\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 24\/09\/2008 \n\n \n\nORAL\nORDER<\/pre>\n
1.\tHeard
\nlearned advocate Mr. K.K. Nair appearing on behalf of appellant ?
\nOriental Insurance Company Limited.\n<\/p>\n
2.\tThe
\nappellant ?  Insurance Company has challenged award passed by Motor
\nAccident Claims Tribunal, Nadiad in Motor Accident Claim Petition
\nNo.253 of 2002 Exh.33 dated 13th September 2007. The
\nClaims Tribunal has awarded Rs.2,90,000\/- with 9% interest in favour
\nof respondent claimant.\n<\/p>\n
3.\tLearned
\nadvocate Mr.Nair raised contention that Claims Tribunal has committed
\ngross error while considering the notional income Rs.1500\/- for
\nfuture prospective income which has been taken into account and
\nlooking to age of claimant 65 years wrongly applied 15 multiplier and
\ndeceased was unmarried aged 22 years old even though 1\/3 has deducted
\nfor a personal expenses, but, according to him, claimants are
\nentitled only 1\/3 dependency not 2\/3.\n<\/p>\n
4.\tLearned
\nadvocate Mr. Nair relied upon decision of Apex Court reported in JT
\n2008 (2) SC 33 in case of Ramesh Singh & Anr. v. Satbir Singh &
\nAnr., where, Apex Court has considered age of deceased 22 years and
\nfather’s age 55 years and mother’s age 52 years and 8 multiplier has
\nbeen applied.\n<\/p>\n
5.\tLearned
\nadvocate Mr. Nair also relied upon decision of Apex Court in case of
\nNew India Assurance Company Limited v. Smt. Shanti Pathak and Ors.,<\/a>
\nreported in 2007 (9) Scale 216, where, Apex court has considered age
\nof deceased 25 years and accordingly, considering the age of mother
\n65 years and father is also more than 65 years, 5 multiplier has been
\napplied.\n<\/p>\n
6.\tLearned
\nadvocate Mr. Nair also relied upon the decision of Apex Court in case
\nof Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v. Lalnipuii<\/a> reported
\nin 2007 ACJ 561 ?  Para 11, where, Apex Court has considered that
\nchoice of ?  whether multiplier depends upon age of the claimants
\nand not on the age of the deceased where parents are the claimants.\n<\/p>\n
7.\tExcept
\nthat no other contention has been raised by learned advocate Mr.
\nNair.\n<\/p>\n
8.\tIn
\nthis case, accident occurred on 19th January 2002 at about
\n17-05 hours while going to Jamnagar Gurudwara on Indira Marg Road.
\nThe vehicle involved in accident is Truck No.GTP-7911. The deceased
\nwas admitted in GG Hospital, Jamnagar as an indoor patient and died
\non 20th January 2002 at about 00-30 hours. The claim
\npetition was filed by claimant claiming Rs.5 lacs. The Insurance
\nCompany has filed reply Exh.14 and raised several contentions not
\naccepting liability. The police case was registered vide I-CR No.38
\nof 2002 before Jamnagar City Division Police Station. The affidavit
\nof applicant claimant Pahadbhai Lakhabhai Parmar was filed vide
\nExh.27. Thereafter, certain documents i.e. complaint, panchnama,
\ninquest panchnama, PM Note and Report of P.I. and school leaving
\ncertificate of deceased were produced on record. It is necessary to
\nnote that no documentary or oral evidence has been produced by
\nInsurance Company before Claims Tribunal and vide Exh.31, oral
\nevidence was closed by Insurance Company. Vide Exh.16, issues were
\nframed by Claims Tribunal and come to conclusion that opponent No.1
\nis held negligence because of rash and negligent driving with
\nexcessive speed. Learned advocate Mr. Nair has not raised any
\ncontention about issue of negligence. School Leaving Certificate vide
\nExh.26 deceased’s birth date 1st June 1980 and accident
\noccurred on 19th January 2002. Therefore, deceased was
\naged about 22 years. The Claims Tribunal has considered age of father
\n50 years and age of mother 45 years and also considering
\ncross-examination of respondent claimant. The age of father is 65 to
\n70 years and considering both i.e. age of claimant and age of
\ndeceased, Claims Tribunal has applied 15 multiplier. The income
\nRs.2,000\/- proved by the claimant on the basis of oral evidence but
\nno documentary evidence was produced by claimant in support of
\nincome. According to claimant, Exh.27, deceased was working in Nirma
\nFactory receiving salary of Rs.4,000\/-, but, on the date of accident,
\ndeceased was went for recruitment of police force, but, while
\nreturning, accident occurred and he died. However, Claims Tribunal
\nhas considered that in absence of cogent evidence for income,
\nnotional income Rs.1500\/- was assessed and considering future
\nprospective income, Claims Tribunal has considered Rs.3,000\/- and
\nthereafter, 1\/3rd has been deducted which comes to
\nRs.2250\/- and net dependency comes to Rs.1500\/- and 15 multiplier has
\nbeen applied and Rs.2,70,000\/- is considered as future dependency
\nloss, Rs.10,000\/- loss of expectation of life and Rs.10,000\/- being a
\nfuneral expenses for going to take dead body in their village. In
\nall, Rs.2,90,000\/- has been awarded with 9% interest.\n<\/p>\n
9.\tBefore
\nthis Court, an advocate of Insurance Company has raised various
\ncontentions as if that Insurance Company is standing in queue of
\nowner. These are the contentions which must have to be raised by
\nowner not by Insurance Company. The Insurance Company is entitled to
\nchallenge or raised contention within a meaning of Section 149(2) of
\nM.V. Act. The Insurance Company is duty bound to indemnify the owner
\naccording to terms and conditions of Insurance Policy.\n<\/p>\n
10.\t\tLearned
\nadvocate Mr. Nair submitted that application for permission under
\nSection 170 of MV Act is granted by Claims Tribunal. Therefore,
\nInsurance company is entitled to challenge quantum before Claims
\nTribunal and this Court. The Insurance Company is having permission
\nunder Section 170 raised contention about quantum awarded by Claims
\nTribunal, but, before the Claims Tribunal, an advocate Mr. Divyeshwar
\nwho was appearing on behalf of Insurance Company has not raised any
\ncontention in respect to quantum. The issues were framed vide Exh.16
\nby Claims Tribunal and Tribunal has considered the arguments of both
\nsides. Learned advocate Mr. Dave appearing on behalf of Insurance
\ncompany before Claims Tribunal and according to his submissions made
\nby learned advocate Mr. Dave for Insurance Company at page 7 that in
\nabsence of cogent evidence from respondent claimant, Claims Tribunal
\nshall have to consider notional income Rs.15000\/- per year and 15
\nmultiplier is to be applied and according to advocate of Insurance
\nCompany, Rs.75,000\/- being a loss of dependency, Rs.10,000\/- for loss
\nof expectation of life and Rs.3,000\/- for funeral expenses. In all,
\nit comes to Rs.88,000\/- with 7.5% interest. So, it was the
\nsubmissions of advocate of Insurance Company with 15 multiplier that
\ncan be applied in these facts of case. Now, learned advocate Mr. Nair
\nrelying upon three decisions of Apex Court and made legal submissions
\ncontrary to the submissions which were made by advocate of Insurance
\nCompany before Claims Tribunal. An advocate of appellant appeared
\nbefore Claims Tribunal admitted that 15 multiplier may be applied.
\nNow, advocate before this court raising contention relying upon three
\ndecisions of Apex Court as referred above and contended that only 8
\nmultiplier is to be applied looking to the age of claimant. However,
\ncontention raised by learned advocate Mr. Dave on behalf of Insurance
\nCompany that deceased was unmarried, therefore, 2\/3rd is
\nto be deducted as a personal expenses.\n<\/p>\n
11.\t\tAfter
\nperusing the award in question, Claims Tribunal has considered
\nRs.2,000\/- income against suggestions of Rs.4,000\/-, then, it
\nreducing to Rs.1500\/- per month and prospective income comes to
\nRs.4500 ?  Rs.2250 which comes to Rs.1500\/- dependency after
\ndeducting 1\/3rd amount being a personal expenses from
\nRs.2250\/- future prospect.\n<\/p>\n
12.\t\tLearned
\nadvocate Mr. Nair submitted that deceased was unmarried, therefore,
\n2\/3rd dependency is not available to the claimant. The
\nview taken by Apex Court in case of Bijoy Kumar Dugar v.
\nBidyadhar Dutta and others<\/a>
\nreported in AIR
\n2006 SC 1255,
\nwhere, the Apex Court has considered that when deceased is a young
\nboy of 24 years old, was unmarried and claimants were his father and
\nmother, the dependency has to be calculated on the basis
\nthat within two or three years the deceased would have married and
\nraised family and the monthly allowance he was giving to his parents
\nwould have been cut down, thus, 1\/3rd amount is to be
\ndeducted instead of 2\/3rd. The relevant observations made
\nby Apex Court in Para 8 is quoted as under :\n<\/p>\n
\t?S8.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe deceased, a young boy of 24 years old, was unmarried and the
\n\tclaimants were his father and mother, the dependency has to be
\n\tcalculated on the basis that within two or three years the deceased
\n\twould have married and raised family and the monthly allowance he
\n\twas giving to his parents would have been cut down. Thus, in our
\n\tview, the MACT has awarded just and reasonable compensation to the
\n\tclaimants.??\n<\/p>\n
13.\t\tRecently,
\nthe Apex Court has considered the same in case of Bilkish
\nV.United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another
\nreported in 2008 ACJ 1357.\n<\/p>\n
Relevant observations made by apex court in Para 4 is reproduced as
\nunder, where, Apex Court has considered that incumbent was a bachelor
\nand he could not have spend more than 1\/3rd of his total
\nincome for personal use and rest of the  amount earned by
\nhim would certainly go to the family kitty.   Therefore, determining
\nthe  loss of dependency by  50%  was not correct. Therefore,  we
\nassess that he must be spending 1\/3rd towards personal use and
\ncontributing 2\/3rd of his  income to his family. Accordingly, lost of
\ndependency has been worked out on the basis of 2\/3rd not
\n1\/3rd.\n<\/p>\n
?S4.\n<\/p>\n
After hearing learned counsel for the parties,  we are of the opinion
\nthat the view taken by the High Court & Tribunal is not correct.
\nThe incumbent  was a bachelor and he could not have spent more than
\n1\/3rd of his total income for personal use and rest of the  amount
\nearned by him would certainly go to the family kitty.   Therefore,
\ndetermining the  loss of dependency by  50%  was not correct.
\nTherefore,  we assess that he must be spending 1\/3rd towards personal
\nuse and contributing 2\/3rd of his  income to his family.
\nTherefore, we work out that Rs. 30,000\/- earned by him per annum.
\nThe loss of dependency was 2\/3rd i.e. Rs. 20,000\/- .  The multiplier
\nof  ’11’  applied for loss of dependency was also not correct and as
\nper schedule appended to the  Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 it should  be
\n’12’.  Applying the multiplier of 12 the total loss of dependency
\nwill be Rs. 20,000\/-x 12 =  Rs. 2,40,000\/- and Rs, 10,000\/- towards
\nloss of estate & funeral expenses, the total compensation comes
\nto Rs. 2,50,000\/- and  incumbent is entitled for interest @ 9\/% per
\nannum from the date of the petition.    The  appeal is allowed with
\nthe  aforesaid modification.  If any amount had already been paid to
\nthe claimant then that amount  may be deducted from the total amount.
\n Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part with no order as to
\ncosts.??\n<\/p>\n
14.\t\tTherefore,
\nconsidering the fact that father and mother aged about 65 to 70 years
\nas per their affidavit having only one son aged 22 years died all of
\nsudden, this being a jerk to the family and to father and mother,
\nthen, how they will maintain family at the age of 65 to 70 years
\nwithout any support of his son. Therefore, according to my opinion,
\nconsidering age 22 years is marriageable age and therefore, 1\/3rd
\ndeduction is perfectly justified considering the facts and
\ncircumstances of the case and it cannot consider to be unreasonable
\nin any manner.\n<\/p>\n
15.\t\tThe
\ncontention about 15 multiplier which has been applied looking to age
\nof claimant.\n<\/p>\n
16.\t\tI
\nhave considered three decisions which has been relied upon by learned
\nadvocate Mr. Nair. The deceased was working in factory and on the
\ndate of accident, he was coming back from a recruitment procedure for
\npolice force. He was not unemployed as per evidence of father,
\ntherefore, this Court has considered the matter that whether total
\ncompensation which has been awarded by Claims Tribunal is reasonable,
\njust and proper or not, that is the object of Section 168 of MV Act
\nis to be considered by Claims Tribunal. So, looking to amount of
\ncompensation Rs.2,90,000\/- which has been awarded by Claims Tribunal
\nif it is invested in any nationalised bank looking to current rate of
\ninterest 7.5%, then, almost income of deceased received by claimants.
\nSo, the ultimate purpose to award compensation to see that the
\nclaimant may not remain without any source of income when bread
\nwinner died suddenly in the family. A jerk received by family may not
\nbe destroyed because of not having a help on financial side. This
\nbeing a help to family on financial side, so, family can survive and
\nmaintain the same in absence of son aged 22 years who died. [See
\n: 2005 (8) Scale 173 ?  K.I. Bindee and 2006 (11) GHJ 552]<\/p>\n
17.\t\tTherefore,
\naccording to my opinion, 15 multiplier which has been suggested by
\nlearned advocate Mr. Dave appeared on behalf of Insurance Company
\nbefore Claims Tribunal is reasonable, just and proper. Only different
\nwas that learned advocate Mr. Dave suggested 1\/3rd
\ndependency and Claims Tribunal has accepted 2\/3rd
\ndependency, for that, recent decision of Apex Court is applied in
\ncase of marriageable age, 1\/3rd deduction is legal and
\nvalid. Therefore, according to my opinion, contention which has been
\nraised by learned advocate Mr. Nair cannot be accepted in light of
\nthe facts that father and mother are aged about 65 to 70 years who
\nlost their son aged about 22 years who was working in factory and
\nexcept their son, no other heirs are available in family in absence
\nof their son, therefore, how they can maintain their lives and
\nfamily. Therefore, compensation Rs.2,90,000\/- awarded by Claims
\nTribunal is reasonable, just and proper which cannot consider to be
\nunreasonable, unjust and arbitrary in any manner. Therefore,
\ncontention raised by learned advocate Mr. Nair cannot be accepted and
\ntherefore, same are rejected.\n<\/p>\n
18.\t\tThere
\nis no substance in appeal. Accordingly, present appeal is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
19.\t\tThe
\namount, if any, which has been deposited by Insurance Company before
\nregistry of this Court be transmitted to Claims Tribunal concerned
\nimmediately.\n<\/p>\n
20.\t\tIn
\nview of above order passed by this Court in appeal, no further order
\nis required to be passed in Civil Application. Accordingly, Civil
\nApplication is disposed of.\n<\/p>\n
[H.K.\n<\/p>\n
RATHOD, J.]<\/p>\n
#Dave<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Oriental vs Pahadbhai on 24 September, 2008 Author: H.K.Rathod,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print FA\/3855\/2008 11\/ 11 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 3855 of 2008 With CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9835 of 2008 ========================================================= ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD – Appellant(s) Versus PAHADBHAI LAKHABHAI PARMAR […]<\/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-62619","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nOriental vs Pahadbhai on 24 September, 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\/oriental-vs-pahadbhai-on-24-september-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Oriental vs Pahadbhai on 24 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/oriental-vs-pahadbhai-on-24-september-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=\"2008-09-23T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-08-03T09:27:40+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/oriental-vs-pahadbhai-on-24-september-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/oriental-vs-pahadbhai-on-24-september-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Oriental vs Pahadbhai on 24 September, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-03T09:27:40+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/oriental-vs-pahadbhai-on-24-september-2008\"},\"wordCount\":2274,\"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\\\/oriental-vs-pahadbhai-on-24-september-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/oriental-vs-pahadbhai-on-24-september-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/oriental-vs-pahadbhai-on-24-september-2008\",\"name\":\"Oriental vs Pahadbhai on 24 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-03T09:27:40+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/oriental-vs-pahadbhai-on-24-september-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/oriental-vs-pahadbhai-on-24-september-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/oriental-vs-pahadbhai-on-24-september-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Oriental vs Pahadbhai on 24 September, 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":"Oriental vs Pahadbhai on 24 September, 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\/oriental-vs-pahadbhai-on-24-september-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Oriental vs Pahadbhai on 24 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/oriental-vs-pahadbhai-on-24-september-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-09-23T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-08-03T09:27:40+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/oriental-vs-pahadbhai-on-24-september-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/oriental-vs-pahadbhai-on-24-september-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Oriental vs Pahadbhai on 24 September, 2008","datePublished":"2008-09-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-03T09:27:40+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/oriental-vs-pahadbhai-on-24-september-2008"},"wordCount":2274,"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\/oriental-vs-pahadbhai-on-24-september-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/oriental-vs-pahadbhai-on-24-september-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/oriental-vs-pahadbhai-on-24-september-2008","name":"Oriental vs Pahadbhai on 24 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-09-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-03T09:27:40+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/oriental-vs-pahadbhai-on-24-september-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/oriental-vs-pahadbhai-on-24-september-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/oriental-vs-pahadbhai-on-24-september-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Oriental vs Pahadbhai on 24 September, 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\/62619","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=62619"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/62619\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=62619"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=62619"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=62619"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}