{"id":92500,"date":"2009-04-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-04-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manpreet-singh-ors-vs-sukhvinder-singh-ors-on-13-april-2009"},"modified":"2015-04-25T12:13:15","modified_gmt":"2015-04-25T06:43:15","slug":"manpreet-singh-ors-vs-sukhvinder-singh-ors-on-13-april-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manpreet-singh-ors-vs-sukhvinder-singh-ors-on-13-april-2009","title":{"rendered":"Manpreet Singh & Ors. vs Sukhvinder Singh & Ors. on 13 April, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court<\/div>\n
Manpreet Singh & Ors. vs Sukhvinder Singh & Ors. on 13 April, 2009<\/div>\n
Author: Kailash Gambhir<\/div>\n
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI\n\n                       FAO No. 304\/2000\n\n      Judgment reserved on:     7th March, 2008.\n\n      Judgment delivered on: 13.4.2009\n\n\nManpreet Singh & Ors.                       ..... Appellant.\n\n                   Through: Mr.Y.R. Sharma, Advocate.\n\n                       Versus\n\nSukhvinder Singh & Ors.              ..... Respondents<\/pre>\n
                   Through: Mr. Pradeep Gaur, Advocate.\n<\/p>\n
\nCORAM:\n<\/p>\n
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR,<\/p>\n
1.    Whether the Reporters of local papers may
\n      be allowed to see the judgment?                  No<\/p>\n
2.    To be referred to Reporter or not?               No<\/p>\n
3.    Whether the judgment should be reported
\n      in the Digest?                                   No<\/p>\n
KAILASH GAMBHIR, J. :\n<\/p>\n
1.    The present appeal arises out of the award dated<\/p>\n
4.5.2000 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whereby the<\/p>\n
Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.3,94,000\/- along with interest<\/p>\n
@ 12% per annum to the claimants.\n<\/p>\n
FAO. No.304\/2000                      Page 1 of 9<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
 2.    The brief conspectus of the facts is as follows:<\/p>\n
      On 2.4.97, Sardar Avtar Singh      was driving his two<\/p>\n
wheeler scooter and his wife and      daughter Km. Gurmeet<\/p>\n
Kaur were sitting on the pillion seat of the said scooter.<\/p>\n
They were coming back to their residence and when they<\/p>\n
reached at Ring Road near Naroji Nagar at about 9 P.M. a<\/p>\n
bus bearing registration no. DL-1P-4455 driven by the driver<\/p>\n
of the said bus in a rash and negligent manner         hit the two<\/p>\n
wheeler scooter, as a result of this impact Gurmeet Kaur<\/p>\n
died at the spot and Sardar Avtar Singh received             fatal<\/p>\n
injuries.\n<\/p>\n
      A claim petition was filed on 6.5.1997 and an award<\/p>\n
was made on 4.5.2000.        Aggrieved with the said award<\/p>\n
enhancement is claimed by way of the present appeal.<\/p>\n
3.    Sh.Y.R. Sharma, counsel for the appellants contended<\/p>\n
that the tribunal erred in assessing the income of the<\/p>\n
deceased at Rs. 4000\/- per month whereas after looking at<\/p>\n
the facts and circumstances of the case the tribunal should<\/p>\n
have assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 17,000\/-<\/p>\n
per month. The counsel further maintained that the tribunal<\/p>\n
erred in making the deduction to the tune of 1\/3rd of the<\/p>\n
FAO. No.304\/2000                         Page 2 of 9<\/span>
\n income of the deceased towards personal expenses when<\/p>\n
the deceased was supporting a large family at the time of<\/p>\n
accident and is survived by his wife, two minor children, one<\/p>\n
son and mother. The counsel submitted that the tribunal<\/p>\n
erroneously applied the multiplier of 12 while computing<\/p>\n
compensation       when     according    to    the      facts   and<\/p>\n
circumstances of the case multiplier of 13 should have been<\/p>\n
applied. It was urged by the counsel that the tribunal erred<\/p>\n
in   not   considering    future   prospects   while    computing<\/p>\n
compensation as it failed to appreciate that the deceased<\/p>\n
would have earned much more in near future as he was of<\/p>\n
48 yrs of age only and would have lived for another 22 yrs<\/p>\n
had he not met with the accident. The counsel also stated<\/p>\n
that had the deceased not met with his untimely death he<\/p>\n
would have been earning much more in the near future. It<\/p>\n
was also urged by the counsel that the tribunal did not<\/p>\n
consider the fact that due to high rates of inflation the<\/p>\n
deceased would have earned much more in near future and<\/p>\n
the 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 his life span.<\/p>\n
FAO. No.304\/2000                          Page 3 of 9<\/span>
\n The counsel contended that the tribunal erred in not<\/p>\n
awarding compensation towards loss of love and affection,<\/p>\n
loss of estate and loss of service which were being rendered<\/p>\n
by the deceased to the appellants.\n<\/p>\n
4.    Per   contra,   Mr.   Pradeep   Gaur,   counsel   for   the<\/p>\n
respondent submitted that the appellants are not entitled<\/p>\n
to any further amount of compensation over and above the<\/p>\n
amount already granted by the Tribunal. The counsel also<\/p>\n
contended that for claiming any increase in the future,<\/p>\n
cogent and sufficient grounds\/reasons have to be disclosed<\/p>\n
by the claimants and in the absence of the same, future<\/p>\n
increase cannot be taken into account for determining loss<\/p>\n
of financial dependence. Counsel for the respondent further<\/p>\n
contended that in the absence of any evidence placed by<\/p>\n
the appellants with regard to the future loss of income, this<\/p>\n
Court may not interfere in the compensation amount<\/p>\n
awarded by the Tribunal, which can not be considered<\/p>\n
either as unjust or unfair.\n<\/p>\n
5.    I have heard learned counsel for the parties and<\/p>\n
perused the record.\n<\/p>\n
FAO. No.304\/2000                         Page 4 of 9<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
 6.    To prove the income of the deceased PW3 Smt.<\/p>\n
Tejinder Kaur, wife of the deceased deposed that the<\/p>\n
deceased and his family were living for the past many years<\/p>\n
in the Gurudwara at Green Park, where free accommodation<\/p>\n
was given to them and besides that he was being paid<\/p>\n
Rs.1300\/- p.m. and above that he used to earn income by<\/p>\n
performing ceremonies at marriages etc., from which he<\/p>\n
used to earn around Rs.17,000\/- p.m.      She also deposed<\/p>\n
that had he not met with the accident then he would have<\/p>\n
earned much more in the near future. She deposed that<\/p>\n
the deceased used to give her Rs.10,000\/- for household<\/p>\n
expenses.    She deposed that he had    accounts in Canara<\/p>\n
Bank and Punjab National Bank in Green Park and a house<\/p>\n
worth Rs.8 lacs was purchased a year ago before the death<\/p>\n
by way of instalments and had also purchased a plot for<\/p>\n
Rs.1,43,000\/-. She had brought on record the documents in<\/p>\n
support of the said statements as exhibits PW1\/3 to<\/p>\n
Ex.PW1\/40. The claimants also examined PW1, Shri Gurmit<\/p>\n
Singh who is working as Granthi in Gurudwara. He deposed<\/p>\n
that he was earning Rs.12,000\/- to Rs.13,000\/- per annum<\/p>\n
and he produced a certificate Ex.PW1\/1 signed by Secretary<\/p>\n
FAO. No.304\/2000                       Page 5 of 9<\/span>
\n Sardar Amir Singh Chawla which shows that the salary of<\/p>\n
the deceased was Rs. 1300\/- and was provided with a rent<\/p>\n
free accommodation including water and electricity. The<\/p>\n
said certificate also mentions that the deceased was<\/p>\n
permitted to perform other religious activities on his own at<\/p>\n
religious functions.   Another witness PW2 Shri Madan<\/p>\n
Singh, Head Granthi in Green Park, Gurudwara, was also<\/p>\n
examined who supported the fact that the deceased was<\/p>\n
earning Rs.17,000\/- per annum though       his regular salary<\/p>\n
was Rs.1300\/- . He has admitted that the deceased was not<\/p>\n
an income tax assessee.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
7.    In my considered view the Tribunal committed no<\/p>\n
error in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.4,000\/-<\/p>\n
p.m. The monthly salary of the deceased was duly proved<\/p>\n
on record at Rs.1300\/- p.m. as per Exhibit PW-1.     Besides<\/p>\n
the said monthly salary, the Tribunal rightly took into<\/p>\n
consideration the additional source of his income after<\/p>\n
noticing the fact that the deceased was a Head Granthi at a<\/p>\n
Gurudwara and it is a matter of common knowledge that a<\/p>\n
Granthi apart from performing religious ceremonies at<\/p>\n
FAO. No.304\/2000                       Page 6 of 9<\/span>
\n Gurudwara also performs Akhand Path, Ardaas, Khula Path,<\/p>\n
marriage ceremonies at other functions.<\/p>\n
8.    I therefore do not find any             ground        for further<\/p>\n
enhancement        in   the   income   that    to    the    extent   of<\/p>\n
Rs.17,000\/- per month without there being any cogent<\/p>\n
evidence to support.          No interference in this regard is<\/p>\n
warranted.\n<\/p>\n
9.    As regards the contention of the counsel for the<\/p>\n
appellant that the tribunal erred in applying the multiplier of<\/p>\n
12 in the facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that the<\/p>\n
tribunal has committed an error. The deceased was of 48<\/p>\n
years of age at the time of the accident and is survived by<\/p>\n
his widow, two minor children, a son and his mother. I am of<\/p>\n
the view that after looking at the age of the claimants and<\/p>\n
the deceased the multiplier of 13 ought to be applied in<\/p>\n
accordance with the II Schedule to the M.V. Act, therefore,<\/p>\n
the award is modified to the said extent.\n<\/p>\n
10.   As regards the issue of deduction to the tune of 1\/3 rd<\/p>\n
made by the Tribunal being on lower side as the deceased<\/p>\n
is survived by his widow, two minor children, a son and his<\/p>\n
aged mother, I am of the view that the interest of justice<\/p>\n
FAO. No.304\/2000                              Page 7 of 9<\/span>
\n would be best served if \u00bc deduction is made herein. Thus,<\/p>\n
the award is modified to the said extent.\n<\/p>\n
11.    The other contention of the counsel for the appellant is<\/p>\n
that    the   tribunal   erred   in   not    granting     adequate<\/p>\n
compensation towards loss of consortium and funeral<\/p>\n
expenses and no compensation has been granted towards<\/p>\n
loss of love and affection and loss of estate. In this regard<\/p>\n
compensation towards loss of love and affection is awarded<\/p>\n
at Rs.40,000\/- the compensation towards loss of consortium<\/p>\n
and funeral expenses to the tune of Rs.10,000\/- shall be<\/p>\n
considered as compensation towards funeral expenses and<\/p>\n
compensation towards loss of estate is awarded at Rs.<\/p>\n
10,000\/-. Further, Rs. 50,000\/- is awarded towards loss of<\/p>\n
consortium.\n<\/p>\n
12.    As far as the contention pertaining to the award of<\/p>\n
amount towards mental pain and sufferings caused to the<\/p>\n
appellants due to the sudden demise of the deceased and<\/p>\n
the loss of services, which were being rendered by the<\/p>\n
deceased to the appellants is concerned, I do not feel<\/p>\n
inclined to award any amount as compensation towards the<\/p>\n
same as the same are not conventional heads of damages.<\/p>\n
FAO. No.304\/2000                            Page 8 of 9<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
 13.   The total loss of dependency comes to Rs. 4,68,000\/-.<\/p>\n
After considering Rs. 1,10,000\/- which is granted towards<\/p>\n
non-pecuniary damages the total compensation comes out<\/p>\n
as Rs. 5,78,000\/-.\n<\/p>\n
14.   In   view    of   the   above   discussion,     the   total<\/p>\n
compensation is enhanced to Rs. 5,78,000\/- from Rs.<\/p>\n
3,94,000\/-. The differential amount shall be paid with<\/p>\n
interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the<\/p>\n
present petition till realisation and the same should be paid<\/p>\n
to the appellants by the respondent insurance company in<\/p>\n
the same proportion as awarded by the tribunal.<\/p>\n
15.   With the above direction, the present appeal is<\/p>\n
disposed of.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
13.4.2009                         KAILASH GAMBHIR J.\nmg\n\n\n\n\nFAO. No.304\/2000                        Page 9 of 9<\/span>\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court Manpreet Singh & Ors. vs Sukhvinder Singh & Ors. on 13 April, 2009 Author: Kailash Gambhir IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI FAO No. 304\/2000 Judgment reserved on: 7th March, 2008. Judgment delivered on: 13.4.2009 Manpreet Singh & Ors. ….. Appellant. Through: Mr.Y.R. Sharma, Advocate. Versus Sukhvinder Singh & […]<\/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-92500","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nManpreet Singh & Ors. vs Sukhvinder Singh & Ors. on 13 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\/manpreet-singh-ors-vs-sukhvinder-singh-ors-on-13-april-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Manpreet Singh & Ors. vs Sukhvinder Singh & Ors. on 13 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manpreet-singh-ors-vs-sukhvinder-singh-ors-on-13-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=\"2009-04-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-04-25T06:43:15+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\\\/manpreet-singh-ors-vs-sukhvinder-singh-ors-on-13-april-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manpreet-singh-ors-vs-sukhvinder-singh-ors-on-13-april-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Manpreet Singh & Ors. vs Sukhvinder Singh & Ors. on 13 April, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-04-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-04-25T06:43:15+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manpreet-singh-ors-vs-sukhvinder-singh-ors-on-13-april-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1602,\"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\\\/manpreet-singh-ors-vs-sukhvinder-singh-ors-on-13-april-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manpreet-singh-ors-vs-sukhvinder-singh-ors-on-13-april-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manpreet-singh-ors-vs-sukhvinder-singh-ors-on-13-april-2009\",\"name\":\"Manpreet Singh & Ors. vs Sukhvinder Singh & Ors. on 13 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-04-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-04-25T06:43:15+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manpreet-singh-ors-vs-sukhvinder-singh-ors-on-13-april-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manpreet-singh-ors-vs-sukhvinder-singh-ors-on-13-april-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manpreet-singh-ors-vs-sukhvinder-singh-ors-on-13-april-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Manpreet Singh & Ors. vs Sukhvinder Singh & Ors. on 13 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":"Manpreet Singh & Ors. vs Sukhvinder Singh & Ors. on 13 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\/manpreet-singh-ors-vs-sukhvinder-singh-ors-on-13-april-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Manpreet Singh & Ors. vs Sukhvinder Singh & Ors. on 13 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manpreet-singh-ors-vs-sukhvinder-singh-ors-on-13-april-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-04-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-04-25T06:43:15+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\/manpreet-singh-ors-vs-sukhvinder-singh-ors-on-13-april-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manpreet-singh-ors-vs-sukhvinder-singh-ors-on-13-april-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Manpreet Singh & Ors. vs Sukhvinder Singh & Ors. on 13 April, 2009","datePublished":"2009-04-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-04-25T06:43:15+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manpreet-singh-ors-vs-sukhvinder-singh-ors-on-13-april-2009"},"wordCount":1602,"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\/manpreet-singh-ors-vs-sukhvinder-singh-ors-on-13-april-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manpreet-singh-ors-vs-sukhvinder-singh-ors-on-13-april-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manpreet-singh-ors-vs-sukhvinder-singh-ors-on-13-april-2009","name":"Manpreet Singh & Ors. vs Sukhvinder Singh & Ors. on 13 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-04-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-04-25T06:43:15+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manpreet-singh-ors-vs-sukhvinder-singh-ors-on-13-april-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manpreet-singh-ors-vs-sukhvinder-singh-ors-on-13-april-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manpreet-singh-ors-vs-sukhvinder-singh-ors-on-13-april-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Manpreet Singh & Ors. vs Sukhvinder Singh & Ors. on 13 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\/92500","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=92500"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/92500\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=92500"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=92500"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=92500"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}