{"id":6541,"date":"2011-03-02T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-03-01T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kusum-ors-vs-satbir-ors-on-2-march-2011"},"modified":"2018-01-24T16:56:39","modified_gmt":"2018-01-24T11:26:39","slug":"kusum-ors-vs-satbir-ors-on-2-march-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kusum-ors-vs-satbir-ors-on-2-march-2011","title":{"rendered":"Kusum & Ors vs Satbir & Ors on 2 March, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Kusum & Ors vs Satbir & Ors on 2 March, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: Ganguly<\/div>\n
Bench: G.S. Singhvi, Asok Kumar Ganguly<\/div>\n
                                                            REPORTABLE\n\n\n\n           IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA\n\n               CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n\n\n\n\n               CIVIL APPEAL NO.2269 OF 2011\n\n(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.24432\/10)\n\n\n\n\n\nKusum Lata and others                     ...Appellant(s)\n\n\n\n\n\n                         - Versus -\n\n\n\nSatbir and others                        ...Respondent(s)\n\n\n\n\n\n                     J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
GANGULY, J.\n<\/p>\n
1.      Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n
2.      Heard   learned   counsel   for   the   claimant, <\/p>\n
        learned   counsel   for   the   insurance   company <\/p>\n
        and also the learned counsel for respondent <\/p>\n
        nos.1   and   2,   the   driver   and   the   owner   of <\/p>\n
        the offending vehicle.\n<\/p>\n
                             1<\/span><\/p>\n
3.    In   this   case   the   claim   for   compensation <\/p>\n
      filed   by   the   appellants   was   concurrently <\/p>\n
      denied   both   by   the   Motor   Accident   Claims <\/p>\n
      Tribunal   (for   short,   `the   Tribunal’)   as <\/p>\n
      also by the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
4.    The  material facts  of the  case are  that on <\/p>\n
      12th January, 2005 while Surender Kumar, the <\/p>\n
      victim, was going on foot, he was hit by a <\/p>\n
      vehicle   from   behind   as   the   vehicle   was <\/p>\n
      driven   rashly   and   negligently   and   was   also <\/p>\n
      in   a   high   speed.     The   victim   sustained <\/p>\n
      several   injuries   and   was   rushed   to   the <\/p>\n
      hospital   and   was   declared   dead.     After   the <\/p>\n
      said incident the appellants, namely, Kusum <\/p>\n
      Lata,   wife   of   the   victim   and   three   of   his <\/p>\n
      children,   two   are   minor   daughters   and   one <\/p>\n
      is a minor son, filed a claim petition.\n<\/p>\n
5.    When   the   matter   came   up   before   the <\/p>\n
      Tribunal,   the   Tribunal   in   its   award   dated <\/p>\n
                           2<\/span><\/p>\n
      14.6.2006          framed              three         issues          for <\/p>\n
      adjudication.  Of those three issues, since <\/p>\n
      the   Tribunal   came   to   a   finding   against   the <\/p>\n
      appellants   on   the   first   issue,   the   other <\/p>\n
      findings   of   the   Tribunal   in   the   second   and <\/p>\n
      third issue were, according to Tribunal, of <\/p>\n
      no   avail   to   the   appellants.   On   the   first <\/p>\n
      issue   the   Tribunal   came   to   a   finding   that <\/p>\n
      the   involvement   of   the   offending   vehicle <\/p>\n
      being   tempo   No.HR-34-8010   has   not   been <\/p>\n
      proved   and   since   on   this   issue   the <\/p>\n
      Tribunal’s         finding             went          against         the <\/p>\n
      appellants,   no   compensation   was   awarded.\n<\/p>\n
      On   an   appeal   filed   against   the   said   award, <\/p>\n
      the   High   Court   by   the   impugned   judgment <\/p>\n
      dated   21.5.2010   also   affirmed   the   finding <\/p>\n
      of the Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n
6.    The   main   reason   why   both   the   Tribunal   and <\/p>\n
      the   High   Court   reached   their   respective <\/p>\n
      findings that vehicle No.HR-34-8010 was not <\/p>\n
                             3<\/span><\/p>\n
      involved   in   the   accident   are   primarily <\/p>\n
      because   of   the   fact   that   in   the   FIR   which <\/p>\n
      was   lodged   by   one   Ashok   Kumar,   brother   of <\/p>\n
      the   victim,   neither   the   number   of   the <\/p>\n
      vehicle   nor   the   name   of   the   driver   was <\/p>\n
      mentioned.\n<\/p>\n
7.    Admittedly, the facts were that the brother <\/p>\n
      of   the   deceased,   Ashok   Kumar   while   walking <\/p>\n
      on   the   road   heard   some   noise   and   then   saw <\/p>\n
      that   a   white   colour   tempo   had   hit   his <\/p>\n
      brother   and   sped   away.     Immediately,   he <\/p>\n
      found   that   his   brother,   being   seriously <\/p>\n
      injured,   was   in   an   urgent   need   of   medical <\/p>\n
      aid and he took him to the hospital.  Under <\/p>\n
      such   circumstances   it   may   be   natural   for <\/p>\n
      him not to note the number of the offending <\/p>\n
      vehicle.   That   may   be   perfectly   consistent <\/p>\n
      with   normal   human   conduct.   Therefore,   that <\/p>\n
      by   itself   cannot   justify   the   findings <\/p>\n
      reached by the Tribunal and which have been <\/p>\n
                           4<\/span><\/p>\n
affirmed by the High Court.  In the present <\/p>\n
case,   evidence   has   come   on   record   from   the <\/p>\n
deposition   of   one   Dheeraj   Kumar,   who <\/p>\n
clearly   proved   the   number   of   the   vehicle.\n<\/p>\n
The   evidence   of   Dheeraj   Kumar   is   that   he <\/p>\n
was   going   along   with   one   Ashok   Kumar   on   a <\/p>\n
scooter   to   know   the   condition   of   one   of <\/p>\n
their relative in Mahendergarh Hospital. As <\/p>\n
they   reached   at   turning   at   Mahendergarh <\/p>\n
road   a   tempo   bearing   No.   HR-34-8010         of <\/p>\n
white   colour   being   driven   in   a   rash   and <\/p>\n
negligent   manner   came   from   behind   and <\/p>\n
overtook   their   scooter.   Dheeraj   Kumar   was <\/p>\n
not   driving   the   scooter.   Dheeraj   Kumar   saw <\/p>\n
that the tempo hit Surender, the victim, as <\/p>\n
a   result   of   which   he   fell   down   but   the <\/p>\n
tempo   did   not   stop   after   the   accident.\n<\/p>\n
However,   the   evidence   of   Dheeraj   Kumar   is <\/p>\n
that   they   followed   the   same   and   caught   the <\/p>\n
driver.        On   their   asking,   the   driver <\/p>\n
disclosed   his   name   as   Satbir   son   of   Shri <\/p>\n
                     5<\/span><\/p>\n
Ram   Avtar.   Thereafter,   they   went   to <\/p>\n
Mahendergarh   Hospital   and   on   the   next   day <\/p>\n
when they were returning, they found police <\/p>\n
and other persons were present at the spot.\n<\/p>\n
Dheeraj   Kumar   told   the   name   of   the   driver <\/p>\n
and   gave   the   number   of   the   tempo   to   the <\/p>\n
police.     Dheeraj   Kumar   claims   to   have   seen <\/p>\n
the   incident   with   his   own   eyes.          When <\/p>\n
Dheeraj Kumar was cross-examined, he stated <\/p>\n
that   the   deceased   Surender   is   not   related <\/p>\n
to   him   nor   was   he   his   neighbour.     He   was <\/p>\n
his   co-villager.     Dheeraj   Kumar   also   told <\/p>\n
that   he   knows   the   driver   of   the   vehicle <\/p>\n
bearing   No.   HR-34-8010.          He   denied   all <\/p>\n
suggestions that he was giving his evidence <\/p>\n
to  help the  victim.    Both the  Tribunal and <\/p>\n
the   High   Court   have   refused   to   accept   the <\/p>\n
presence   of   Dheeraj   Kumar   as   his   name   was <\/p>\n
not  disclosed in  the FIR  by the  brother of <\/p>\n
the victim.\n<\/p>\n
                     6<\/span><\/p>\n
8.    This   Court   is   unable   to   appreciate   the <\/p>\n
      aforesaid   approach   of   the   Tribunal   and   the <\/p>\n
      High   Court.     This   Court   is   of   the   opinion <\/p>\n
      that   when   a   person   is   seeing   that   his <\/p>\n
      brother,   being   knocked   down   by   a   speeding <\/p>\n
      vehicle,   was   suffering   in   pain   and   was   in <\/p>\n
      need   of   immediate   medical   attention,   that <\/p>\n
      person   is   obviously   under   a   traumatic <\/p>\n
      condition.     His   first   attempt   will   be   to <\/p>\n
      take   his   brother   to   a   hospital   or   to   a <\/p>\n
      doctor.     It   is   but   natural   for   such   a <\/p>\n
      person   not   to   be   conscious   of   the   presence <\/p>\n
      of   any   person   in   the   vicinity   especially <\/p>\n
      when Dheeraj did not stop at the spot after <\/p>\n
      the   accident   and   gave   a   chase   to   the <\/p>\n
      offending   vehicle.          Under   such   mental <\/p>\n
      strain   if   the   brother   of   the   victim   forgot <\/p>\n
      to   take   down   the   number   of   the   offending <\/p>\n
      vehicle it was also not unnatural.\n<\/p>\n
                           7<\/span><\/p>\n
9.     There is no reason why the Tribunal and the <\/p>\n
       High   Court   would   ignore   the   otherwise <\/p>\n
       reliable   evidence   of   Dheeraj   Kumar.   In <\/p>\n
       fact,   no   cogent   reason   has   been   assigned <\/p>\n
       either by the Tribunal or by the High Court <\/p>\n
       for   discarding   the   evidence   of   Dheeraj <\/p>\n
       Kumar.   The   so-called   reason   that   as   the <\/p>\n
       name   of   Dheeraj   Kumar   was   not   mentioned   in <\/p>\n
       the FIR, so it was not possible for Dheeraj <\/p>\n
       Kumar  to see  the incident,  is not  a proper <\/p>\n
       assessment   of   the   fact-situation   in   this <\/p>\n
       case.     It   is   well   known   that   in   a   case <\/p>\n
       relating   to   motor   accident   claims,   the <\/p>\n
       claimants   are   not   required   to   prove   the <\/p>\n
       case   as   it   is   required   to   be   done   in   a <\/p>\n
       criminal   trial.     The   Court   must   keep   this <\/p>\n
       distinction in mind.\n<\/p>\n
10.    Reference in this connection may be made to <\/p>\n
       the   decision   of   this   Court   in  Bimla   Devi <\/p>\n
       and   others     v.     Himachal   Road   Transport<\/a> <\/p>\n
                              8<\/span><\/p>\n
              Corporation and others [(2009) 13 SCC 530], <\/p>\n
              in   which   the   relevant   observation   on   this <\/p>\n
              point   has   been   made   and   which   is   very <\/p>\n
              pertinent and is quoted below:-\n<\/p>\n
              “In   a   situation   of   this   nature,   the <\/p>\n
       Tribunal   has   rightly   taken   a   holistic <\/p>\n
       view of the matter.   It was necessary to <\/p>\n
       be borne in mind that strict proof of an <\/p>\n
       accident caused by a particular bus in a <\/p>\n
       particular  manner  may  not  be  possible  to <\/p>\n
       be done by the claimants.   The claimants <\/p>\n
       were   merely   to   establish   their   case   on <\/p>\n
       the      touchstone      of      preponderance      of <\/p>\n
       probability.          The   standard   of   proof <\/p>\n
       beyond   reasonable   doubt   could   not   have <\/p>\n
       been applied.”\n<\/p>\n
11.           In   respect   of   the   finding   reached   by   the <\/p>\n
              Tribunal on the assessment of compensation, <\/p>\n
              this Court finds that the Tribunal has used <\/p>\n
              the   multiplier   of   16,   even   though   the   age <\/p>\n
              of   the   deceased   has   been   determined   to   be <\/p>\n
              29.     We   find   that   the   Tribunal   erred   by <\/p>\n
              applying   the   multiplier   of   16.     However, <\/p>\n
              considering   the   age   of   the   victim,   the <\/p>\n
              multiplier   of   17   should   be   applied   in   view <\/p>\n
              of   the   decision   of   this   Court   in  Sarla <\/p>\n
                                      9<\/span><\/p>\n
       Verma   (Smt)   and   others  v.  Delhi   Transport <\/p>\n
       Corporation   and   another  reported   in   (2009) <\/p>\n
       6 SCC 121,  and the chart at page 139.   It <\/p>\n
       is  not in  dispute that  in the  instant case <\/p>\n
       the   claim   for   compensation   has   been   filed <\/p>\n
       under   Section   166   of   the   Motor   Vehicles <\/p>\n
       Act.        This   Court   finds   that   if   the <\/p>\n
       multiplier of 17 is applied then the amount <\/p>\n
       comes   to   Rs.3,93,428.45   apart   from   the <\/p>\n
       amount   of   funeral   expenses   and   the   amount <\/p>\n
       granted   for   loss   of   consortium.   Taking   all <\/p>\n
       these together the amount comes to a little <\/p>\n
       more than four lacs of rupees.\n<\/p>\n
12.    The   Court,   however,   in   exercise   of   its <\/p>\n
       power under Article 142 and considering the <\/p>\n
       number   of   claimants,   of   which   three   are <\/p>\n
       minor   children,   is   of   the   opinion   that   for <\/p>\n
       doing   complete   justice   in   the   case   and   by <\/p>\n
       taking   a   broad   and   comprehensive   view   of <\/p>\n
       the   matter,   an   amount   of   Rs.6   lacs <\/p>\n
                            1<\/span><\/p>\n
       including   the   amounts   of   consortium   and <\/p>\n
       funeral   expenses   would   meet   the   ends   of <\/p>\n
       justice.     The   Court,   therefore,   grants   a <\/p>\n
       compensation   of   Rs.6   lacs   considering   the <\/p>\n
       fact   that   the   victim   was   the   sole   wage <\/p>\n
       earner   in   the   family   and   he   left   behind <\/p>\n
       three minor children and a widow.  The said <\/p>\n
       amount  is to  be paid  along with  interest @ <\/p>\n
       7%   from   the   date   of   presentation   of   the <\/p>\n
       claim   petition   till   the   date   of   actual <\/p>\n
       payment.\n<\/p>\n
13.    In   respect   of   the   dispute   about   licence, <\/p>\n
       the   Tribunal   has   held   and,   in   our   view <\/p>\n
       rightly,   that   the   insurance   company   has   to <\/p>\n
       pay  and then  may recover  it from  the owner <\/p>\n
       of   the   vehicle.     This   Court   is   affirming <\/p>\n
       that   direction   in   view   of   the   principles <\/p>\n
       laid   down   by   a   three-Judge   Bench   of   this <\/p>\n
       Court   in   the   case   of  National   Insurance <\/p>\n
       Company   Limited  v.  Swaran   Singh   and   others<\/a> <\/p>\n
       reported in (2004) 3 SCC 297.\n<\/p>\n
                           1<\/span><\/p>\n
14.    The   appeal   is,   therefore,   allowed.     The <\/p>\n
       judgments   of   the   Tribunal   and   the   High <\/p>\n
       Court are set aside.  The insurance company <\/p>\n
       is  to pay  the aforesaid  amount in  the form <\/p>\n
       of   a   bank   draft   in   the   name   of   appellant <\/p>\n
       no.1   with   interest   as   aforesaid   within   a <\/p>\n
       period   of   six   weeks   from   date   and   deposit <\/p>\n
       the   same   in   the   Tribunal.   This   direction <\/p>\n
       should   be   strictly   complied   with   by   the <\/p>\n
       Insurance Company.\n<\/p>\n
15.    This   Court   directs   the   Tribunal   to   take <\/p>\n
       steps   for   opening   a   bank   account   in   the <\/p>\n
       name         of         the         appellant         no.1         in         a <\/p>\n
       Nationalised   Bank   and   deposit   the   demand <\/p>\n
       draft   in   that   account.   If,   however,   there <\/p>\n
       is   any   bank   account   in   the   name   of   the <\/p>\n
       appellant   no.1,   the   demand   draft   is   to   be <\/p>\n
       deposited in that bank account.\n<\/p>\n
                                      1<\/span><\/p>\n
16.     No costs.\n<\/p>\n
                      …………………..J.\n<\/p>\n
                      (G.S. SINGHVI)<\/p>\n
                      …………………..J.\n<\/p>\n
New Delhi             (ASOK KUMAR GANGULY)<\/p>\n
March 02, 2011<\/p>\n
                      1<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Kusum & Ors vs Satbir & Ors on 2 March, 2011 Author: Ganguly Bench: G.S. Singhvi, Asok Kumar Ganguly REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.2269 OF 2011 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.24432\/10) Kusum Lata and others …Appellant(s) – Versus – Satbir […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-6541","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nKusum & Ors vs Satbir & Ors on 2 March, 2011 - 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\/kusum-ors-vs-satbir-ors-on-2-march-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Kusum & Ors vs Satbir & Ors on 2 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kusum-ors-vs-satbir-ors-on-2-march-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-03-01T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-01-24T11:26:39+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kusum-ors-vs-satbir-ors-on-2-march-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kusum-ors-vs-satbir-ors-on-2-march-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Kusum & Ors vs Satbir & Ors on 2 March, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-03-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-24T11:26:39+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kusum-ors-vs-satbir-ors-on-2-march-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1651,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kusum-ors-vs-satbir-ors-on-2-march-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kusum-ors-vs-satbir-ors-on-2-march-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kusum-ors-vs-satbir-ors-on-2-march-2011\",\"name\":\"Kusum & Ors vs Satbir & Ors on 2 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-03-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-24T11:26:39+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kusum-ors-vs-satbir-ors-on-2-march-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kusum-ors-vs-satbir-ors-on-2-march-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kusum-ors-vs-satbir-ors-on-2-march-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Kusum & Ors vs Satbir & Ors on 2 March, 2011\"}]},{\"@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":"Kusum & Ors vs Satbir & Ors on 2 March, 2011 - 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\/kusum-ors-vs-satbir-ors-on-2-march-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Kusum & Ors vs Satbir & Ors on 2 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kusum-ors-vs-satbir-ors-on-2-march-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-03-01T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-01-24T11:26:39+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kusum-ors-vs-satbir-ors-on-2-march-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kusum-ors-vs-satbir-ors-on-2-march-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Kusum & Ors vs Satbir & Ors on 2 March, 2011","datePublished":"2011-03-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-24T11:26:39+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kusum-ors-vs-satbir-ors-on-2-march-2011"},"wordCount":1651,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kusum-ors-vs-satbir-ors-on-2-march-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kusum-ors-vs-satbir-ors-on-2-march-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kusum-ors-vs-satbir-ors-on-2-march-2011","name":"Kusum & Ors vs Satbir & Ors on 2 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-03-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-24T11:26:39+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kusum-ors-vs-satbir-ors-on-2-march-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kusum-ors-vs-satbir-ors-on-2-march-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kusum-ors-vs-satbir-ors-on-2-march-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Kusum & Ors vs Satbir & Ors on 2 March, 2011"}]},{"@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\/6541","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=6541"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6541\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6541"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6541"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6541"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}