{"id":96479,"date":"2009-03-31T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-03-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sumitra-ors-vs-up-state-roadways-tpt-corpn-anr-on-31-march-2009"},"modified":"2018-07-30T06:25:36","modified_gmt":"2018-07-30T00:55:36","slug":"sumitra-ors-vs-up-state-roadways-tpt-corpn-anr-on-31-march-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sumitra-ors-vs-up-state-roadways-tpt-corpn-anr-on-31-march-2009","title":{"rendered":"Sumitra & Ors vs Up State Roadways Tpt.Corpn. & Anr on 31 March, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court<\/div>\n
Sumitra & Ors vs Up State Roadways Tpt.Corpn. & Anr on 31 March, 2009<\/div>\n
Author: J.R. Midha<\/div>\n
*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI\n\n+                      FAO 116\/1998\n\n                             Date of reserve: 3rd February, 2009\n                              Date of decision: 31st March , 2009\n%\n      SUMITRA & ORS                               ..... Appellants\n                        Through : Mr. Amarjit Singh, Adv.\n\n                   versus\n\n      UP STATE ROADWAYS TPT.CORPN.\n      & ANR                              ..... Respondents\n                   Through : Ms. Garima Prashad and\n                            Ms. Suchita Sharma, Advs.\n\nCORAM :-\nTHE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA\n\n1.      Whether Reporters of Local papers may               Yes\n        be allowed to see the Judgment?\n\n2.      To be referred to the Reporter or not?              Yes\n\n3.      Whether the judgment should be                      Yes\n        reported in the Digest?\n\n                            JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
1.    The appellants have challenged the award of the learned<\/p>\n
Tribunal whereby the compensation of Rs.1,58,500\/- was<\/p>\n
awarded to them.      The appellants seek enhancement of the<\/p>\n
award amount.\n<\/p>\n
2.    On 25th December, 1993 at about 7:45 pm, the deceased<\/p>\n
was going on his two wheeler scooter No.DL-5S-7028.                His<\/p>\n
employee, Lakhan Ram Chaurasia was sitting on the pillion.<\/p>\n
When the scooter reached in front of Ram Singh Hospital near<\/p>\n
Krishna Nagar, a U.P. Roadways Bus hit him from behind due to<\/p>\n
which the deceased was thrown on one side and his employee,<\/p>\n
FAO No. 116\/1998                                         Page 1 of 10<\/span>
\n Lakhan Ram was thrown on the other side.            The deceased<\/p>\n
succumbed to the injuries suffered in the accident.<\/p>\n
3.    The appellant was a young boy aged 22 years.          At the<\/p>\n
time of his death, he was unmarried and was survived by his<\/p>\n
mother and four sisters out of which two sisters were<\/p>\n
unmarried at the time of the accident.        The father of the<\/p>\n
deceased had already pre-deceased him and, therefore, the<\/p>\n
entire burden of maintaining the family was on the deceased.<\/p>\n
4.    In the claim petition before the Tribunal, it was contended<\/p>\n
that the deceased was the sole proprietor of M\/s Arora Tent and<\/p>\n
Electric Store and he was earning Rs.6,000\/- per month.<\/p>\n
5.    The     learned   Tribunal   computed   the   compensation<\/p>\n
payable to the appellants by taking the income of the deceased<\/p>\n
at Rs.1,500\/- in parity with an unskilled labourer out of which<\/p>\n
Rs.500\/- was deducted as the amount that the deceased would<\/p>\n
have spent on himself and the dependency of the appellants<\/p>\n
was computed at Rs.1,000\/- per month on which after applying<\/p>\n
the multiplier of 12, the loss of dependency was assessed at<\/p>\n
Rs.1,44,000\/-.     Rs.10,000\/- has been awarded to appellant<\/p>\n
No.1 for love and affection, Rs.2,000\/- for funeral expenses and<\/p>\n
Rs.2,500\/- for loss of estate.\n<\/p>\n
6.    The appellant has challenged the impugned award of the<\/p>\n
Learned Tribunal mainly on three grounds.     The first ground of<\/p>\n
challenge is that the deceased was running the business of tent<\/p>\n
and electric store and was earning Rs.6,000\/- per month but<\/p>\n
FAO No. 116\/1998                                        Page 2 of 10<\/span>
\n the Learned Tribunal erred in drawing the parity with an<\/p>\n
unskilled labourer and taking his income as Rs.1,500\/- per<\/p>\n
month.     The second ground is that the Second Schedule of the<\/p>\n
Motor Vehicles Act provides the multiplier of 17 taking the age<\/p>\n
of the deceased but the Learned Tribunal erred in applying the<\/p>\n
lower multiplier of 12. The third ground is that very low amount<\/p>\n
of Rs.10,000\/- has been awarded for love and affection and<\/p>\n
Rs.2,500\/- for loss of estate .\n<\/p>\n
7.    With respect to the income of the deceased, the<\/p>\n
appellants     examined     three   witnesses.   Appellant     No.1<\/p>\n
appeared as PW-3 and deposed that the deceased was running<\/p>\n
the business of tent and electric shop and was earning<\/p>\n
Rs.6,000\/- per month.      She further deposed that the deceased<\/p>\n
used to give whole amount of Rs.6,000\/- to her for household<\/p>\n
expenses after keeping his pocket money and other expenses<\/p>\n
of the shop.       She further deposed that the deceased was her<\/p>\n
only son and the only earning hand in the family and her two<\/p>\n
daughters were married whereas the other two daughters were<\/p>\n
of marriageable age.      She stated that her husband had already<\/p>\n
expired and the shop was closed down after the death of the<\/p>\n
deceased.      The appellant further stated that the business of<\/p>\n
tent and electric store was earlier being carried on by her<\/p>\n
husband and after his death, the deceased was doing the<\/p>\n
business.     The witness stated in cross-examination that the<\/p>\n
deceased was having three employees out of which one<\/p>\n
FAO No. 116\/1998                                        Page 3 of 10<\/span>
\n employee was sitting on the pillion of the scooter along with the<\/p>\n
deceased.      In     cross-examination,    she    admitted   that      the<\/p>\n
deceased was not paying Income Tax.               She further admitted<\/p>\n
that she has not filed any document or any account books of<\/p>\n
the shop to prove the income of the deceased.<\/p>\n
8.    The     appellants     produced      two    more   witnesses           to<\/p>\n
corroborate the statement of PW-3.           PW-1, Mr. Sanjay Chadha<\/p>\n
is running the business of photography opposite to the shop of<\/p>\n
the deceased.         He stated that the income of the deceased was<\/p>\n
Rs.6,000\/- to Rs.6,500\/-.       PW-1 took the photographs of the<\/p>\n
U.P. Roadways Bus and the scooter.               He also exhibited the<\/p>\n
photographs of the deceased as Ex.PW1\/K1 to PW1\/K3.                PW-2,<\/p>\n
Vijay Arora is the neighbour of the appellants.                He also<\/p>\n
corroborated the statement of the deceased with respect to the<\/p>\n
income of Rs.6,000\/-.\n<\/p>\n
9.    I have perused the evidence on record.             Ex.PW1\/K1 to<\/p>\n
Ex.PW1\/K3 are the photographs of the deceased who was<\/p>\n
smart and handsome young boy.              He was matriculate.     It has<\/p>\n
been proved by PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 that the deceased was<\/p>\n
running the business of tent and electric store in the name of<\/p>\n
‘M\/s. Arora Tent and Electric Store’ in Lal Quarter Market,<\/p>\n
Krishna Nagar, East Delhi which is a prominent market in the<\/p>\n
East Delhi.        The business was earlier being carried on by the<\/p>\n
father of the deceased and after his death, the deceased<\/p>\n
carried on the business.       It has also come in evidence that the<\/p>\n
FAO No. 116\/1998                                              Page 4 of 10<\/span>
\n business was closed down after the death of the deceased as<\/p>\n
there was no other male member in the family of the deceased.<\/p>\n
The deceased was survived by his mother who is not educated<\/p>\n
and four sisters, out of which two were unmarried at the time of<\/p>\n
his death.    It has also come in evidence that the deceased had<\/p>\n
three employees out of which one was sitting on the pillion with<\/p>\n
him at the time of his death.\n<\/p>\n
10.   Appellant No.1 has categorically stated in the witness box<\/p>\n
that the deceased used to give her Rs.6,000\/- for household<\/p>\n
expenses after keeping his pocket money and other expenses.<\/p>\n
PW – 2 as well as PW-3 also corroborated the statement of PW-1<\/p>\n
with respect to the business as well the income of the<\/p>\n
deceased.      It is well known that the profit is very high in the<\/p>\n
business of tent and electric store.       The learned Tribunal,<\/p>\n
therefore, clearly erred in drawing the parity of young,<\/p>\n
educated, smart and handsome boy running his own business<\/p>\n
with an unskilled labourer.     I find the analogy to be irrational<\/p>\n
and unjustified.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
11.   The Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the<\/p>\n
deceased was not paying Income Tax and, therefore, the<\/p>\n
income of the deceased cannot be taken to be more than the<\/p>\n
maximum non-taxable limit.       On the other hand, the counsel<\/p>\n
for the appellant submits that non-payment of Income Tax may<\/p>\n
invite violation of Income Tax law but cannot be a ground for<\/p>\n
denying just compensation to the appellant.           The learned<\/p>\n
FAO No. 116\/1998                                         Page 5 of 10<\/span>
\n counsel for the appellant refers to and relies upon the Division<\/p>\n
Bench Judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Oriental<\/p>\n
Insurance Company Limited vs. Bhupender Kaur,<\/a> 2004<\/p>\n
ACJ 1130.          In that case, the deceased was not paying the<\/p>\n
Income Tax. However, the Court held that it would not nullify<\/p>\n
the statement of the wife of the deceased that she was actually<\/p>\n
receiving Rs.10,000\/- to Rs.12,000\/- per month from the<\/p>\n
deceased.      The ratio of the above case is applicable to the<\/p>\n
present case.        The learned counsel for the respondent refers<\/p>\n
to and relies upon the judgment in the case of Bijoy Kumar<\/p>\n
Duggal Vs. Bidhyadhar Dutta – 2006 (3) SCC              where the<\/p>\n
appeal for enhancement was dismissed in the absence of<\/p>\n
documentary proof of the income.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
12.   Considering the evidence on record, I am of the view that<\/p>\n
there is sufficient evidence on record that the deceased was<\/p>\n
carrying on the business of tent and electric store in the<\/p>\n
prominent market of East Delhi, he had three employees and<\/p>\n
he used to give Rs.6,000\/- to his mother for household<\/p>\n
expenses.      I, therefore, take the income of the deceased to be<\/p>\n
Rs.3,000\/- at the time of his death.      This income would have<\/p>\n
increased with the passage of time and computing future<\/p>\n
prospects as per the principle laid down by the Apex Court in<\/p>\n
the case of Sarla Dixit vs. Balwant Yadav,<\/a> 1996 SCC 1274,<\/p>\n
the average income of the deceased would have been<\/p>\n
Rs.3,000\/- + Rs.6,000\/- divided by 2 = Rs.4,500\/-.     Out of this,<\/p>\n
FAO No. 116\/1998                                         Page 6 of 10<\/span>
\n the appellant would have spent 1\/3rd on himself and the loss of<\/p>\n
dependency on the appellants is computed at Rs.3,000\/- per<\/p>\n
month.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
13.   The Learned Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 12<\/p>\n
without giving any reason.     The deceased was aged 22 years<\/p>\n
and his mother was aged 44 years at the time of the death of<\/p>\n
the deceased.      Taking the age of the mother, Second Schedule<\/p>\n
provides the multiplier of 15.    The counsel for the appellant<\/p>\n
refers to and relies upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the<\/p>\n
case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. Vs.<\/p>\n
Trilok Chandra & Ors. – (1996) 4 SCC 362 where the Apex<\/p>\n
Court has held that maximum multiplier could go up to 18 and<\/p>\n
Second Schedule be used as a guide in determination of<\/p>\n
compensation.      Learned counsel for the appellant also refer to<\/p>\n
the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Rattan<\/p>\n
Lal Mehta vs. Rajinder Kapoor,<\/a> 1996 ACJ 372 where it has<\/p>\n
been held that it is open to Courts\/Tribunals to apply table in<\/p>\n
the Second Schedule in respect of accidents which occurred<\/p>\n
prior to the 1994 amendment of the Motor Vehicle Act.            The<\/p>\n
learned counsel for the respondent refers to and relies upon<\/p>\n
the judgments in the cases of Managing Director, TNSTC vs.<\/p>\n
K.I.Bindu,<\/a> [(2005) 8 SCC 473], U.P. State Road Transport<\/p>\n
Corporation vs. Krishna Bala,<\/a> [(2006) 6 SCC 249] and<\/p>\n
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Kalpana,<\/a> [(2007) 3 SCC<\/p>\n
538] in which multiplier lower than one provided in the Second<\/p>\n
FAO No. 116\/1998                                        Page 7 of 10<\/span>
\n Schedule of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been adopted to<\/p>\n
compute the compensation.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
14.     In the present case, the Second Schedule provides the<\/p>\n
multiplier of 15 according to the age of the mother of the<\/p>\n
deceased.      However, considering the recent judgments of the<\/p>\n
Hon’ble Supreme Court where the lower multiplier than the one<\/p>\n
provided in the Second Schedule has been applied, I adopt the<\/p>\n
multiplier of 13.   The total loss of dependency is assessed at<\/p>\n
Rs.4,68,000\/- (Rs.3,000 x 12 x 13).\n<\/p>\n
15.     The counsel for the appellant also refers to and relies<\/p>\n
upon the judgment in the case of Virender Singh vs. Anand<\/p>\n
Prakash,<\/a> 2007 Rajdhani law Reporter 532 in which it was<\/p>\n
held that the claimants are entitled to just compensation which<\/p>\n
can be higher than the amount claimed.      There is no dispute<\/p>\n
on this preposition of law.\n<\/p>\n
16.   With respect to the compensation for love and affection<\/p>\n
and loss of estate, the learned Tribunal has awarded<\/p>\n
Rs.10,000\/- and Rs.2,500\/- respectively.        No reason or<\/p>\n
justification has been given.     In judgment of the case of<\/p>\n
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Sulochana, III (2007)<\/p>\n
ACC 50 (DB), Madras High Court has awarded Rs.25,000\/-<\/p>\n
each to mother and daughter towards love and affection and<\/p>\n
Rs.50,000\/- towards loss of consortium.     I award Rs.10,000\/-<\/p>\n
towards love and affection to appellant No.1 and Rs.5,000\/-<\/p>\n
towards love and affection to each of appellants No. 2 to 5.<\/p>\n
FAO No. 116\/1998                                      Page 8 of 10<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
 17.   The appellant is entitled to compensation of Rs.5,00,000\/-<\/p>\n
(Rs.4,68,000\/- + Rs.10,000\/- + Rs.5,000\/- + Rs.5,000\/- +<\/p>\n
Rs.5,000\/- + Rs.5,000\/- + Rs.2,000\/-).\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
18.   The appeal is allowed and the compensation is enhanced<\/p>\n
from Rs.1,58,500\/- to Rs.5,00,000\/-.     The learned Tribunal had<\/p>\n
awarded interest @12% from the date of filing of the petition till<\/p>\n
after one month of the award and 14% thereafter.         I do not<\/p>\n
disturb the interest on Rs.1,58,000\/- as it is in the conformity<\/p>\n
with bank interest rates at that time.         However, on the<\/p>\n
enhanced amount now awarded, the respondent shall be<\/p>\n
entitled to the interest @7.5% from the date of filing of the<\/p>\n
petition, that is, 27th January, 1994 till the date of payment.<\/p>\n
The share of the appellants in the enhanced amount shall be as<\/p>\n
under:-\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      Appellant No.1       :      80%\n      Appellants No.2 to 5 :      5% each.\n\n<\/pre>\n
19.   The enhanced amount along with interest be deposited<\/p>\n
by the respondent with the learned Tribunal within 30 days.<\/p>\n
The learned Tribunal is directed to release 30% of the share of<\/p>\n
appellant No.1 to her and remaining 70% of the amount be kept<\/p>\n
in a fixed deposit for a period of ten years on which no loan,<\/p>\n
advance or withdrawal be permitted without the prior<\/p>\n
permission of the learned Tribunal but the periodical interest<\/p>\n
be permitted be released to the appellants.      With respect to<\/p>\n
shares of appellants No.2 to 5, 50% of their share be released<\/p>\n
FAO No. 116\/1998                                        Page 9 of 10<\/span>
\n to them and remaining 50% of their share be kept in fixed<\/p>\n
deposit for a period of five years with restriction on withdrawal,<\/p>\n
loan and advance as above in the case of appellant No.1.         The<\/p>\n
learned Tribunal shall first release the cheques towards the<\/p>\n
amount to be kept in fixed deposits and the remaining amount<\/p>\n
be released only after the original fixed deposit receipts with<\/p>\n
proper endorsements are shown to the learned Tribunal and<\/p>\n
the copies of FDRs duly attested by the Bank are placed on<\/p>\n
record of the learned Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                                  J.R. MIDHA, J.\n<\/p>\n
MARCH 31, 2009
\naj<\/p>\n
FAO No. 116\/1998                                        Page 10 of 10<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court Sumitra & Ors vs Up State Roadways Tpt.Corpn. & Anr on 31 March, 2009 Author: J.R. Midha * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO 116\/1998 Date of reserve: 3rd February, 2009 Date of decision: 31st March , 2009 % SUMITRA & ORS ….. Appellants Through : Mr. […]<\/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-96479","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSumitra & Ors vs Up State Roadways Tpt.Corpn. & Anr on 31 March, 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\/sumitra-ors-vs-up-state-roadways-tpt-corpn-anr-on-31-march-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sumitra & Ors vs Up State Roadways Tpt.Corpn. & Anr on 31 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sumitra-ors-vs-up-state-roadways-tpt-corpn-anr-on-31-march-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=\"2009-03-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-07-30T00:55:36+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sumitra-ors-vs-up-state-roadways-tpt-corpn-anr-on-31-march-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sumitra-ors-vs-up-state-roadways-tpt-corpn-anr-on-31-march-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sumitra & Ors vs Up State Roadways Tpt.Corpn. & Anr on 31 March, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-03-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-30T00:55:36+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sumitra-ors-vs-up-state-roadways-tpt-corpn-anr-on-31-march-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2200,\"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\/sumitra-ors-vs-up-state-roadways-tpt-corpn-anr-on-31-march-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sumitra-ors-vs-up-state-roadways-tpt-corpn-anr-on-31-march-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sumitra-ors-vs-up-state-roadways-tpt-corpn-anr-on-31-march-2009\",\"name\":\"Sumitra & Ors vs Up State Roadways Tpt.Corpn. & Anr on 31 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-03-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-30T00:55:36+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sumitra-ors-vs-up-state-roadways-tpt-corpn-anr-on-31-march-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sumitra-ors-vs-up-state-roadways-tpt-corpn-anr-on-31-march-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sumitra-ors-vs-up-state-roadways-tpt-corpn-anr-on-31-march-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sumitra & Ors vs Up State Roadways Tpt.Corpn. & Anr on 31 March, 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"Sumitra & Ors vs Up State Roadways Tpt.Corpn. & Anr on 31 March, 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\/sumitra-ors-vs-up-state-roadways-tpt-corpn-anr-on-31-march-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sumitra & Ors vs Up State Roadways Tpt.Corpn. & Anr on 31 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sumitra-ors-vs-up-state-roadways-tpt-corpn-anr-on-31-march-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-03-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-07-30T00:55:36+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sumitra-ors-vs-up-state-roadways-tpt-corpn-anr-on-31-march-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sumitra-ors-vs-up-state-roadways-tpt-corpn-anr-on-31-march-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sumitra & Ors vs Up State Roadways Tpt.Corpn. & Anr on 31 March, 2009","datePublished":"2009-03-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-30T00:55:36+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sumitra-ors-vs-up-state-roadways-tpt-corpn-anr-on-31-march-2009"},"wordCount":2200,"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\/sumitra-ors-vs-up-state-roadways-tpt-corpn-anr-on-31-march-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sumitra-ors-vs-up-state-roadways-tpt-corpn-anr-on-31-march-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sumitra-ors-vs-up-state-roadways-tpt-corpn-anr-on-31-march-2009","name":"Sumitra & Ors vs Up State Roadways Tpt.Corpn. & Anr on 31 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-03-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-30T00:55:36+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sumitra-ors-vs-up-state-roadways-tpt-corpn-anr-on-31-march-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sumitra-ors-vs-up-state-roadways-tpt-corpn-anr-on-31-march-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sumitra-ors-vs-up-state-roadways-tpt-corpn-anr-on-31-march-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sumitra & Ors vs Up State Roadways Tpt.Corpn. & Anr on 31 March, 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/96479","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=96479"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/96479\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=96479"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=96479"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=96479"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}