{"id":91676,"date":"2010-12-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-12-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dakshaben-vs-praavinsinh-on-20-december-2010"},"modified":"2019-03-09T05:25:39","modified_gmt":"2019-03-08T23:55:39","slug":"dakshaben-vs-praavinsinh-on-20-december-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dakshaben-vs-praavinsinh-on-20-december-2010","title":{"rendered":"Dakshaben vs Praavinsinh on 20 December, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Dakshaben vs Praavinsinh on 20 December, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: Ks Jhaveri,&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\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nFA\/6112\/1995\t 9\/ 9\tJUDGMENT \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. 6112 of 1995\n \n\nTo\n\n\n \n\nFIRST\nAPPEAL No. 6115 of 1995\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI\n \n \n=========================================================\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\n \n\nDAKSHABEN\nDILIPBHAI VASANT & 2 - Appellant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nPRAAVINSINH\nJILUSA PARMAR (DRIVER) & 4 - Defendant(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance : \nMR\nSANDIP C SHAH for\nAppellant(s) : 1 - 3. MR HA SEJPAL for Appellant(s) : 1 -\n3. \nRULE SERVED for Defendant(s) : 1, \nUNSERVED-REFUSED (R) for\nDefendant(s) : 2, \nMR RAJNI H MEHTA for Defendant(s) : 3, \nRULE\nSERVED BY DS for Defendant(s) : 4, \nMS AMEE YAJNIK for Defendant(s)\n: 5, \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 KS JHAVERI\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\nDate\n: 14\/12\/2010 \n\n \n\nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n
1.\tThese
\nappeals have been filed against the common judgment and award passed
\nby the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Rajkot in M.A.C.P.
\nNos.256\/1990 to 258\/1990 & 260\/1990 dated 25.05.1995, whereby,
\nthe claim petitions were partly allowed to the extent that;\n<\/p>\n
(i) In M.A.C.P. No.256\/1990
\nthe original claimants were held to be entitled to recover
\ncompensation of Rs.2,40,000\/- along with interest and proportionate
\ncosts from opponent nos.1 to 3 jointly and severally.\n<\/p>\n
(ii) In M.A.C.P. No.257\/1990
\nthe original claimants were held to be entitled to recover
\ncompensation of Rs.74,000\/- along with interest and proportionate
\ncosts from all the opponents jointly and severally. However, the
\nliability of opponent no.5-Insurance Company was limited to the
\nextent of Rs.15,000\/- only with interest and proportionate costs.\n<\/p>\n
(iii) In M.A.C.P. No.258\/1990
\nthe original claimants were held to be entitled to recover
\ncompensation of Rs.1,60,000\/- along with interest and proportionate
\ncosts from all the opponents jointly and severally. However, the
\nliability of opponent no.5-Insurance Company was limited to the
\nextent of Rs.15,000\/- only with interest and proportionate costs.\n<\/p>\n
(iv) In M.A.C.P. No.260\/1990
\nthe original claimants were held to be entitled to recover
\ncompensation of Rs.84,000\/- along with interest and proportionate
\ncosts from all the opponents jointly and severally. However, the
\nliability of opponent no.5-Insurance Company was limited to the
\nextent of Rs.15,000\/- only with interest and proportionate costs.\n<\/p>\n
2.\tThe
\nfacts in brief are that on 17.04.1990, at about 0130 hrs., deceased
\nAmitkumar Vinodray Vasant, deceased Vrajlal Girdharlal Vasant and
\ndeceased Manjulaben Vrajlal Vasant were travelling in a Car bearing
\nregistration no. GJ-1-529 driven by deceased Dilipbhai Vrajlal
\nVasant. However, at a particular place, a Tanker bearing registration
\nno. GRP 4197, driven by respondent no.1 herein, dashed the said Car.
\nAs a result thereof, all the four persons, including the driver of
\nthe Car, sustained severe injuries and ultimately, died.\n<\/p>\n
3.\tThe
\nlegal heirs of the deceased persons filed claim petitions before the
\nTribunal. The Tribunal partly allowed the claim petitions as
\naforesaid by way of the impugned award. Hence, the present appeals
\nfor enhancement of the amount of compensation as awarded by the
\nTribunal.\n<\/p>\n
4.0
\nMr. Sandip C. Shah, learned counsel for the appellants (In First
\nAppeal No.6112\/1995), original claimants, submitted that the accident
\nin question took place on account of the sole negligence of the
\ndriver of the Tanker and therefore, the Tribunal was not justified in
\nholding that there was contributory negligence and consequently,
\napportioned negligence to the extent of 25% on the deceased. Learned
\ncounsel further submitted that the Tribunal has also not properly
\nappreciated the actual income and prospective income of deceased
\nwhile calculating future loss of income. Further, the multiplier of
\n15 years is also on the lower side since the deceased was only 29
\nyears of age at the relevant point of time. Hence, the impugned award
\npassed by the Tribunal in M.A.C.P. No.256\/1990 deserves to be
\nmodified accordingly.\n<\/p>\n
4.1\tLearned
\ncounsel for the appellants (In First Appeal Nos.6113\/1995 to
\n6115\/1995) submitted that while calculating future loss of income,
\nthe Tribunal has not appreciated the evidence on record in its proper
\nperspective. It has been submitted that the Tribunal has not properly
\nconsidered the oral and documentary evidence produced on record with
\nregard to the income of the deceased. It has also been submitted that
\nthe multiplier adopted by the Tribunal is also on the lesser side.
\nHence, the impugned award passed by the Tribunal deserves to be
\nmodified by enhancing the amount of compensation.\n<\/p>\n
5.\tLearned
\ncounsel for respondent-Insurance Company (In First Appeal
\nNos.6112\/1995 to 6115\/1995) submitted that the Tribunal has assessed
\nthe future income of the deceased after considering all the relevant
\ndocuments on record. He further submitted that the Tanker in question
\nwas found to be on the correct side of the road and therefore, the
\nTribunal has rightly held that it was a case of contributory
\nnegligence. Hence, this Court may not interfere with the impugned
\naward passed by the Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n
6.\tHeard
\nlearned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents
\non record. Though served, none appears on behalf of respondent nos.1,
\n2 & 4.\n<\/p>\n
 FIRST
\nAPPEAL No. 6112\/1995 :\n<\/p>\n
7.\tIn
\norder to prove the income of the deceased, the appellants had
\nproduced on record the Income-Tax Returns of the deceased vide
\nExhibits – 59 to 62 & 95. On the basis of the said
\ndocuments, the Tribunal assessed the average annual income of the
\ndeceased for the last five years at Rs.27,300\/-. However, the
\nTribunal has assessed the prospective income of the deceased at
\nRs.30,000\/-, which, in my opinion, is improper and inappropriate. If
\nwe calculate the prospective income by adopting the formula of
\ndoubling the income and then taking the average thereof, viz. (27300
\n+ 54600 = 81900 & 81900\/2), then the income would come to
\nRs.41,000\/-. Thereafter, by deducting 1\/3rd amount towards
\nthe expenses of the deceased, the income under the head of loss of
\ndependency benefit would come to Rs.27,300\/-. The multiplier of 15
\nyears adopted by the Tribunal, in my opinion, is just and appropriate
\nsince it is in consonance with the provisions of the M.V. Act and
\nalso as per the latest law on the subject. Thus, by adopting the
\nmultiplier of 15 years, the income under the head of future loss
\nwould come to (27,300 X 15) Rs.4,09,500\/-. However, the Tribunal has
\nawarded only Rs.3,00,000\/-. Hence, the appellants shall be entitled
\nfor additional amount of Rs.1,09,500\/- under the head of future loss
\nof income.\n<\/p>\n
8.\tIt
\nhas come on record that the panchnama (Exh.79) does not say the
\nactual spot of impact or the spot where the vehicles had actually
\ncollided. It is required to be noted that the driver of the Tanker
\nwas not examined by the original opponents as their Witness for
\nreasons best known to them. However, merely on that ground, it could
\nnot be concluded that the driver of the Tanker was solely negligent
\nfor the accident, particularly, when the panchnama (Exh.79) is unable
\nto throw any light as regards the place of actual impact. On the
\nbasis of the above, the Tribunal apportioned negligence between the
\ndriver of the Tanker and the Car at 75 : 25 per cent, which, in my
\nview, is just and appropriate.\n<\/p>\n
9.\tNow,
\nif we deduct 25% of the amount out of the total amount of Rs.4,29,500
\n(4,09,500 + 20,000, viz. being the conventional amount), it would
\ncome to Rs.3,22,125\/-. Thus, the original claimants shall be entitled
\nfor an additional amount of Rs.82,125\/- (3,22,125 – 2,40,000 =
\n82,125).\n<\/p>\n
10.\tSo
\nfar as the rate of interest of 12% awarded by the Tribunal is
\nconcerned, in my opinion, the same is on the higher side and also
\nagainst the provisions of the Act and the guidelines framed by the
\nHon’ble Apex Court in such cases. Looking to the present scenario and
\nkeeping in mind the guidelines framed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, it
\nwould be appropriate to grant interest 7.5% p.a. as against 12%
\ngranted by the Tribunal. Hence, the original claimants shall be
\nentitled for interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of application till
\nits realization along with proportionate costs from original opponent
\nnos.1 to 3.\n<\/p>\n
 FIRST
\nAPPEAL Nos. 6113\/1995 :\n<\/p>\n
11.\tThere
\nis no dispute regarding the fact that the deceased was 14 years of
\nage at the time of his death. The Tribunal has considered the
\nnotional \/ actual income of the deceased at Rs.900\/- per month on the
\npremise that the deceased was attending the shop of his father.
\nHowever, considering the fact that the Tribunal has adopted the
\nmultiplier of 15, which, admittedly, is on the lower side keeping in
\nmind his age, even then I do not find it fit to interfere with the
\naward since the ultimate difference, if any, which may be arrived at
\nby reducing the income and by increasing the multiplier, would be
\nmeager. Hence, I agree with the final award passed by the Tribunal in
\nM.A.C.P. No. 257\/1990.\n<\/p>\n
 FIRST
\nAPPEAL Nos. 6114\/1995 & 6115\/1995 :\n<\/p>\n
12.\tAs
\nregards the amount of compensation awarded in M.A.C.P. Nos.258\/1990 &
\n260\/1990, in my opinion, the same are just and appropriate. The
\namounts have been arrived at by relying upon cogent documentary
\nevidence, particularly, the Income Tax Returns of the deceased. The
\nmultipliers adopted by Tribunal is also in consonance with the recent
\nguidelines framed by the Hon’ble Apex Court. Hence, I find no reasons
\nto interfere with the awards passed in M.A.C.P. Nos.258\/1990 &
\n260\/1990.\n<\/p>\n
13.\tFor
\nthe foregoing reasons, the following order is passed;\n<\/p>\n
(i)  F.A. No.6112\/1995
\n: The appeal is partly allowed. The impugned award passed by the
\nTribunal is modified to the extent that the original claimants shall
\nbe entitled for additional compensation of Rs.82,125\/-, over and
\nabove what has been awarded by the Tribunal, along with interest @
\n7.5% p.a. from the date of application till its realization with
\nproportionate costs from original opponent nos.1 to 3. The rest of
\nthe award passed in M.A.C.P. No.256\/1990 remains unaltered.\n<\/p>\n
(ii)  F.A. No.6113\/1995 to
\n6115\/1995 : The appeals are dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe
\nappeals stand disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
[K.\n<\/p>\n
S. JHAVERI, J.]\t<\/p>\n
Pravin\/*<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Dakshaben vs Praavinsinh on 20 December, 2010 Author: Ks Jhaveri,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print FA\/6112\/1995 9\/ 9 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 6112 of 1995 To FIRST APPEAL No. 6115 of 1995 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI ========================================================= 1 […]<\/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-91676","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nDakshaben vs Praavinsinh on 20 December, 2010 - 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\/dakshaben-vs-praavinsinh-on-20-december-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Dakshaben vs Praavinsinh on 20 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dakshaben-vs-praavinsinh-on-20-december-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-12-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-03-08T23:55:39+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\\\/dakshaben-vs-praavinsinh-on-20-december-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dakshaben-vs-praavinsinh-on-20-december-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Dakshaben vs Praavinsinh on 20 December, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-12-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-08T23:55:39+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dakshaben-vs-praavinsinh-on-20-december-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1525,\"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\\\/dakshaben-vs-praavinsinh-on-20-december-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dakshaben-vs-praavinsinh-on-20-december-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dakshaben-vs-praavinsinh-on-20-december-2010\",\"name\":\"Dakshaben vs Praavinsinh on 20 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-12-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-08T23:55:39+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dakshaben-vs-praavinsinh-on-20-december-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dakshaben-vs-praavinsinh-on-20-december-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dakshaben-vs-praavinsinh-on-20-december-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Dakshaben vs Praavinsinh on 20 December, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"Dakshaben vs Praavinsinh on 20 December, 2010 - 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\/dakshaben-vs-praavinsinh-on-20-december-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Dakshaben vs Praavinsinh on 20 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dakshaben-vs-praavinsinh-on-20-december-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-12-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-03-08T23:55:39+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\/dakshaben-vs-praavinsinh-on-20-december-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dakshaben-vs-praavinsinh-on-20-december-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Dakshaben vs Praavinsinh on 20 December, 2010","datePublished":"2010-12-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-08T23:55:39+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dakshaben-vs-praavinsinh-on-20-december-2010"},"wordCount":1525,"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\/dakshaben-vs-praavinsinh-on-20-december-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dakshaben-vs-praavinsinh-on-20-december-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dakshaben-vs-praavinsinh-on-20-december-2010","name":"Dakshaben vs Praavinsinh on 20 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-12-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-08T23:55:39+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dakshaben-vs-praavinsinh-on-20-december-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dakshaben-vs-praavinsinh-on-20-december-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dakshaben-vs-praavinsinh-on-20-december-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Dakshaben vs Praavinsinh on 20 December, 2010"}]},{"@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\/91676","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=91676"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/91676\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=91676"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=91676"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=91676"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}