{"id":94186,"date":"2007-08-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-08-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kusum-and-ors-vs-kamal-and-anr-on-17-august-2007"},"modified":"2014-12-12T02:56:19","modified_gmt":"2014-12-11T21:26:19","slug":"kusum-and-ors-vs-kamal-and-anr-on-17-august-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kusum-and-ors-vs-kamal-and-anr-on-17-august-2007","title":{"rendered":"Kusum And Ors. vs Kamal And Anr. on 17 August, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madhya Pradesh High Court<\/div>\n
Kusum And Ors. vs Kamal And Anr. on 17 August, 2007<\/div>\n
Author: U Maheshwari<\/div>\n
Bench: U Maheshwari<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
ORDER<\/p>\n
U.C. Maheshwari, J.<\/p>\n
1. This appeal is directed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for  short `the Act) by the appellants\/claimants being aggrieved by the award dated  25.9.96 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Multai in Claim  Case No. 4\/92 dismissing their claim regarding compensation for the death of their  predecessor Nago Rao in a vehicular accident.\n<\/p>\n
2. As per the averments of the claim petition, the predecessor of the appellants  Nago Rao had an agricultural field at village Sandiya Tehsil Multai. The  respondent No. 1, being dealer of respondent No. 2, the manufacturer of tractor and  power trillers, was marketing and selling the aforesaid tractor and the power triller.  On dated 7.9.91, at about 9-10 O’ Clock in the morning, on behalf of respondent  No. 2, respondent No. 1 organized a demonstration of their product Mitsubishi  power triller of 12 HP having Chasis No. C.T.8530\/82 and Engine No. T.W.H.9497  at the field of Nago Rao. The villagers were also invited to such field in whose  presence, firstly, respondent No. 1 drove such triller and thereafter he asked to  Nago Rao to drive the same but he refused to drive. Again, on insistence and  motivation given to him by respondent No. 1, without any instructions for driving  the same, the deceased Nago Rao drove the said triller. During such driving, due  to negligence of respondent No. 1 in giving proper instructions to him, he could not  properly drive the same and met an accident, in which his leg came into the contact  of some part of it and due to such injury and hemorrhage, he succumbed to such  injuries during treatment. The deceased was the earning member of the family of  the appellants. On his untimely death, they have been deprived from the  dependency. Such accident took place because of the negligence of the  respondent. The deceased was 32 years of the age and was earning Rs. 1500\/-per  month from the business of repairing of Motor pump, Radio, Fan, Watch etc.  With these pleadings, the claim was preferred for the compensation of  Rs. 4,40,000\/- and interest.\n<\/p>\n
3. In reply of the respondents, the manufacturing of the triller and tractor by  respondent No. 2 and its marketing through respondent No. 1 as dealer has been  admitted in it but they denied the other averments of the claim petition. They also  denied any negligence on their part. In addition, it was pleaded that deceased  Nago Rao himself was responsible for such accident as no negligence was  committed by respondent No. 1. It is also stated that such power triller is not  covered under the definition of Motor Vehicle as defined under the Act. In special  pleadings, it was pleaded that such power triller was purchased by Naththu S\/o  Uchit Thakur, resident of said village and on the date of the incident when  respondent No. 1 reached to such village than various villagers 150-200 in number,  were assembled in front of the house of said Naththu. The Nago Rao was also  there. After obtaining the consent of Nago Rao, Naththu Thakur requested  respondent No. 1 to show demonstration of such power triller at the field of Nago  Rao, then respondent No. 1, in presence of the villagers with the help of his  servants, demonstrated the work of such triller at such field. Subsequent to it, after  switching it off, it was stationed. Thereafter, when he was giving some instructions  to the villagers regarding such triller, meanwhile Nago Rao went to the  triller,however started it without any knowledge and consent of respondent No. 1  and when his leg was involved in such triller, he cried. Then respondents and other  persons were run and tried to rescue him. Accordingly, respondent No. 1, did not  commit any negligence. Thus, no liability can be saddled against any of the  respondents. He also pleaded that in connection of it, a case under Section 304A  of the IPC was registered, investigated by the police and he was charge-sheeted in  the Court of JMFC Multai but by the judgment dated 25.9.95, he has been  acquitted by such Court.\n<\/p>\n
4. After framing the issues, recording the evidence, on appreciation of the  same by holding that such vehicle was not covered by the definition of the Motor  Vehicle Act and the incident was not the cause of any negligence committed by the  respondent No. 1, the tribunal dismissed the claim of the appellants but all other  issues were decided in favour of the appellants. Being aggrieved by it, the  appellants have come forward with this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
5. Shri N.P.Dubey, learned Counsel for the appellants by referring the  definition `Motor vehicle’ defined under Section 2(28) along with some other  provisions of the Act , said that such power triller was fully covered by such  definition as the same was based on chassis and operated by the engine and it was  driven by a person through handle. Although, it was prepared for agricultural  purposes and did not had four wheels but it could be plied on road by its two  wheels. Its engine capacity was more than 25 cubic centimeter. Firstly, he said  that the tribunal has wrongly held that such power triller was not covered by the  Act. In addition, he said that deceased Nago Rao being illiterate villager and  agriculturist was not aware about the operation and driving of such power triller.  Even on asking, he denied to drive the same during such demonstration but on  being insisted by the respondent No. 1, he drove the same. The respondent No. 1  was duty bound to instruct properly to the deceased before handing-over such  triller to him but he did not do so and in that way, he committed negligence in  handing-over such power triller to the deceased for driving and in such driving,  Nago Rao sustained injuries and died. In such circumstances, the respondents  were liable to indemnify the liability towards the claimants but with wrong  approach, the tribunal held that no negligence was committed by the respondent  No. 1. Such finding is also not sustainable and prayed awarding their claim by  setting aside the impugned award.\n<\/p>\n
6. Shri L.N.Sankle and A. Tiwari, learned Counsel for the respondents while  responding the aforesaid arguments justified the impugned award and said that in  any case the alleged power triller was not covered under the definition of Motor  Vehicle, hence, the claim under the Act was not tenable, hence the tribunal has not  committed any error in holding the same. He further said that as per the available  evidence the incident took place because of own negligence of the deceased as the  triller was driven by him without instructions and consent of respondent No. 1,  therefore, the approach of the tribunal in this regard is also correct. According to  him, the impugned award does not require any interference at this stage.\n<\/p>\n
7. Having heard, I have carefully examined the record and the evidence led by  the parties and also the concerned provisions of the Act. I am of the considered  view that the tribunal has committed an error in holding, that the alleged power  triller was not covered by the definition of Motor Vehicle Act and that the incident  was not the consequence of any negligence on the part of respondent No. 1.\n<\/p>\n
8. Coming to the first question whether such power triller was covered under  the definition of the Motor Vehicle provided under the Act. As per the deposition  of respondent No. 1 Kamal Kumar Soni (DW 1), he took the Agency for selling  and marketing the aforesaid triller in such area from its manufacturer respondent  No. 2. He also accepted that alleged demonstration was made by him at the field of  deceased Nago Rao in presence of the villagers. In para-9 of his cross- examination, he categorically stated that such power triller had two wheels and  Engine of 12 HP and operated with diesel fuel. It does not require any training to  drive the same. In para-10 of his cross-examination, he could not disclose the  weight of the triller and the capacity of its engine whether it had 1000 cubic  centimeter or not. Accordingly, he could not explain the exact cubic centimeter of  such engine. In para-12, he stated that it had a stand like Scooter or by-cycle on  which the same was stationed. It was taken to such field through road by operating  through its engine. He also said that it was driven by handle.\n<\/p>\n
9. In view of the aforesaid deposition of respondent No. 1, it has been revealed  that such power triller had two wheels, operated by diesel engine and driven by  handle and was fit to ply on road also. Although as per said deposition, it did not  require any licence to drive the same or registration with the authority.\n<\/p>\n
10. In the light of aforesaid description of the triller, the Court has to see  whether it was covered under the definition of Motor Vehicle defined under  Section 2(28) of the Act which reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
Motor vehicle or vehicle means any mechanically  propelled vehicle adopted for use upon roads whether  the power of propulsion is transmitted thereto from an  external or internal source and includes a chassis to  which a body has not been attached and a trailer; but  does not include a vehicle running upon fixed rails or a  vehicle of a special type adapted for use only in a  factory or in any other enclosed premises or a vehicle  having less than four wheels fitted with engine capacity  of not exceeding twenty-five cubic centimeters.\n<\/p>\n
According to it, the said power triller, was covered with this definition as  the respondents have failed to prove the exact cubic centimeter of it whether it was  more than 25 cubic centimeter or less. Looking to the 12 HP diesel engine in it  certainly, it had the engine of more than 25 cubic centimeter, and was  mechanically propelled vehicle adopted for use upon roads also as discussed in  aforesaid para-8.\n<\/p>\n
Besides the above, this power triller was also covered by the definition of  Motor Cycle as defined under Section 2(27) of the Act which reads as under : Motor cycle means a two-wheeled motor vehicle,  inclusive of any detachable side-car having an extra  wheel, attached to the motor vehicle.\n<\/p>\n
According to this definition, it includes the two wheels motor vehicle and  admittedly said power triller had two wheels and as per the evidence same was  taken to such field through road by its operating system. Accordingly, it was a  vehicle or motor vehicle and was fully covered under the aforesaid definitions.  Therefore, the approach of the tribunal holding the alleged triller was neither the  motor vehicle nor covered by the Act, are not sustainable. Hence by setting aside  the same, it is held that it was a vehicle or motor-vehicle covered by the Act.\n<\/p>\n
11. Coming to consider the another question regarding negligence of the  respondents. The claimant No. 1 Kusum (A.W.1) the wife of the deceased is not  the eye-witness of the incident as she was not present at the time of the incident on  the spot but the other villagers Sudama (AW 2), Shankar (AW 3) and Praksh (AW  4) categorically stated that on asking by the respondent No. 1, deceased denied to  drive the same but on insisting and giving motivation by respondent No. 1, he  drove the same but before handing-over the triller to deceased, he was not properly  instructed by respondent No. 1 regarding the operative system of it and due to such  negligence, such incident was happened.\n<\/p>\n
12. I have also perused the evidence led on behalf of the respondents.  Respondent No. 1 Kamal Kumar Soni (DW 1) deposed that the alleged triller was  sold to Naththu and at his instance the demonstration was carried out. Regarding  such sale transaction, not a single document was neither produced nor proved by  the respondents, on the contrary, such triller after seizure by the police was taken  by the respondent No. 1 in his interim custody from the concerned court of judicial  magistrate as stated by this witness. The non-examination of Naththu also gives  circumstance to draw adverse inference against the respondents in this regard. As  per further averments, he admitted the alleged demonstration and also sustaining  the injuries by the deceased by such triller. But he tried to say that deceased drove  the triller without his instruction and consent and sustained the injuries and he did  not commit any negligence. It was the negligence of only deceased. The other  witnesses of respondents, Amrit Rao (DW 2) and Waman Rao Barde (DW 3)  supported the testimony of Kamal Kumar on the question that deceased drove the  triller without consent of the respondent No. 1. They stated that deceased  sustained injuries because of his own negligence while driving such triller.  Accordingly it is revealed from these witnesses that the alleged incident was  happened during the course of aforesaid demonstration. It does not appear natural  that in presence of various villagers and respondent No. 1 the triller, was driven by  the deceased without consent of respondent No. 1.\n<\/p>\n
13. After going through the aforesaid evidence, it is crystal clear that  respondent No. 1 alone was not responsible for the incident. As per evidence, the  dealer and marketing agent of respondent No. 2, he organized such demonstration  in which without giving any instruction regarding it’s operating system he insisted  to deceased Nago Rao and on such driving by the deceased, the alleged incident  was happened. Accordingly, respondent No. 1 committed negligence in not giving  the proper instruction to deceased regading it’s operating system before handing- over to him for driving. Simultaneously, deceased also committed negligence that  he without having knowledge of it’s operating system only on motivation and  insistence of respondent No. 1, drove the triller. Thus, this case appears to be a case  of contributory negligence of respondent No. 1 and the deceased both.\n<\/p>\n
14. The demonstration of triller and sustaining the injuries by Nago Rao by  such power triller, are admitted by respondent No. 1 in his deposition. Therefore,  the respondents cannot avoid their liability to indemnify such claim till the extent  of their negligence. Although, the deceased himself drove the same without  knowing the operative system of such triller only at the instance and motivation of  respondent No. 1. Thus, he was also equally responsible for committing the  negligence. Accordingly, it was a case of contributory negligence and the same is  hereby held.\n<\/p>\n
15. Now, the question comes that such incident took place in the agricultural  field of the deceased and not on the road. In such situation the private field of the  deceased could be treated as Public Place defined under Section 2(34) of the  Act. Section 2(34) of the Act reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
Public place means a road, street, way or other place,  whether a thoroughfare or not, to which the public  have a right of access, and includes any place or stand  at which passengers are picket up or set down by a  stage carriage.\n<\/p>\n
According to it, the place where the public has a right to access is also  included and it is not in dispute that on the aforesaid date demonstration was  carried out by respondent No. 1 on behalf of respondent No. 2 in presence of the  villagers in such field who assembled to see such demonstration on such field,  therefore, for such period, it was the Public Place although it was a private  property. In this regard, the case decided by the division bench of this Court in the  matter of Smt. Hirabai and Ors. v. Pratap Singh and Anr.   is relevant, in which it was held as under:\n<\/p>\n
 9. The obtaining factual matrix is to be tested on  the anvil of the aforesaid pronouncements of law. The  Tribunal has recorded the finding that the driver was  proceeding towards the public road and at that juncture  the accident had occurred at the public place. As has  been held in the aforesaid decisions that the public  place does not necessarily mean that it must be the  public property. As is evincible from th evidence on  record though the place was not a public road but the  public had the right to access to the same. There is no  testimony that the public was debarred to enter into the  said road. Keeping in view the connotative expanse of  the term public place. In our considered opinion, the  view expressed by the tribunal is indefensible and  accordingly we dislodge the same.\n<\/p>\n
16. Therefore, it is held that alleged incident took place at the Public Place  while demonstrating the alleged triller the motor-vehicle which is covered under  the Act and it was the case of contributory negligence of the deceased and the  respondents both.\n<\/p>\n
17. The quantum of compensation and other issues of the case have already  been decided by the Tribunal in favour of the appellants\/claimants. The same have  not been challenged by the respondents and nothing was argued on behalf of the  appellants for enhancement of such compensation. In such situation, the findings  of the tribunal in respect of such other issues are hereby affirmed.\n<\/p>\n
18. Therefore, this appeal is allowed in part and by holding that the alleged  triller being covered under the Motor Vehicles Act the claim was rightly filed by  the appellants in tribunal and the case is held to be a case of contributory  negligence of the respondents and the deceased, for which both were equally  liable. In pursuance of it, the liability to indemnify half of the sum (i.e. 50%) as  assessed by the tribunal in the impugned award is saddled against the respondents  jointly and severally. Till this extent, the findings of the impugned award are  modified by setting aside the existing findings while the other findings of it are  hereby affirmed. The respondents are directed to pay the aforesaid sum to the  appellants\/claimants within sixty days from today with interest at the rate of 6%  p.a from the date of initiation of the claim i.e.8.4.1992, failing which respondents  shall pay interest at the rate of 9% p.a. There shall be no order as to costs. The  appeal is allowed in part as indicated above.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madhya Pradesh High Court Kusum And Ors. vs Kamal And Anr. on 17 August, 2007 Author: U Maheshwari Bench: U Maheshwari ORDER U.C. Maheshwari, J. 1. This appeal is directed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short `the Act) by the appellants\/claimants being aggrieved by the award dated 25.9.96 passed by the […]<\/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":[8,24],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-94186","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madhya-pradesh-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nKusum And Ors. vs Kamal And Anr. on 17 August, 2007 - 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-and-ors-vs-kamal-and-anr-on-17-august-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Kusum And Ors. vs Kamal And Anr. on 17 August, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kusum-and-ors-vs-kamal-and-anr-on-17-august-2007\" \/>\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=\"2007-08-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-12-11T21:26:19+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=\"15 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-and-ors-vs-kamal-and-anr-on-17-august-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kusum-and-ors-vs-kamal-and-anr-on-17-august-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Kusum And Ors. vs Kamal And Anr. on 17 August, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-08-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-12-11T21:26:19+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kusum-and-ors-vs-kamal-and-anr-on-17-august-2007\"},\"wordCount\":2991,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madhya Pradesh High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kusum-and-ors-vs-kamal-and-anr-on-17-august-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kusum-and-ors-vs-kamal-and-anr-on-17-august-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kusum-and-ors-vs-kamal-and-anr-on-17-august-2007\",\"name\":\"Kusum And Ors. vs Kamal And Anr. on 17 August, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-08-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-12-11T21:26:19+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kusum-and-ors-vs-kamal-and-anr-on-17-august-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kusum-and-ors-vs-kamal-and-anr-on-17-august-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kusum-and-ors-vs-kamal-and-anr-on-17-august-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Kusum And Ors. vs Kamal And Anr. on 17 August, 2007\"}]},{\"@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 And Ors. vs Kamal And Anr. on 17 August, 2007 - 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-and-ors-vs-kamal-and-anr-on-17-august-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Kusum And Ors. vs Kamal And Anr. on 17 August, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kusum-and-ors-vs-kamal-and-anr-on-17-august-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-08-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-12-11T21:26:19+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":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kusum-and-ors-vs-kamal-and-anr-on-17-august-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kusum-and-ors-vs-kamal-and-anr-on-17-august-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Kusum And Ors. vs Kamal And Anr. on 17 August, 2007","datePublished":"2007-08-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-12-11T21:26:19+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kusum-and-ors-vs-kamal-and-anr-on-17-august-2007"},"wordCount":2991,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madhya Pradesh High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kusum-and-ors-vs-kamal-and-anr-on-17-august-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kusum-and-ors-vs-kamal-and-anr-on-17-august-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kusum-and-ors-vs-kamal-and-anr-on-17-august-2007","name":"Kusum And Ors. vs Kamal And Anr. on 17 August, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-08-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-12-11T21:26:19+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kusum-and-ors-vs-kamal-and-anr-on-17-august-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kusum-and-ors-vs-kamal-and-anr-on-17-august-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kusum-and-ors-vs-kamal-and-anr-on-17-august-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Kusum And Ors. vs Kamal And Anr. on 17 August, 2007"}]},{"@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\/94186","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=94186"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/94186\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=94186"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=94186"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=94186"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}