K.R. Chikkarangaiah Vs Kemparangaiah

Page 1

NON REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.8632 OF 2014 (Arising out of SLP(C) NO. 21666 OF 2013)

KUMARI KIRAN THR. HER FATHER HARINARAYAN … APPELLANT

Vs.

SAJJAN SINGH & ORS. … RESPONDENTS

WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.8633 OF 2014

(Arising out of SLP(C) NO. 21670 OF 2013) AND

CIVIL APPEAL NO.8634 OF 2014 (Arising out of SLP(C) NO. 21671 OF 2013)

J U D G M E N T

V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.

Leave granted in all the special leave petitions.

1

Page 2

2. These appeals have been filed by the appellants against

the common Judgment and order dated 06.11.2012 passed in

Misc. Application Nos. 2575 of 2010, 2574 of 2010 and 2579

of 2010 by the High Court of Judicature of Madhya Pradesh,

Principal Bench at Jabalpur, urging various grounds. Civil

Appeals arising out of SLP(c) Nos. 21666 of 2013 and 21670

of 2013 have been filed by Kumari Kiran and Master Sachin

respectively, through their father Harinarayan as they are

minors, while Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(c) No. 21671

of 2013 has been filed by the appellant Harinarayan.

3. The necessary relevant facts are stated as under: On 04.06.2009, Kumari Kiran and her brother Master Sachin (the pillion riders, hereinafter referred to as the

appellant-minors) were going on a motor cycle to their

village Shujalpur from Bhopal with their father

Harinarayan, (rider of the motor cycle, hereinafter

referred to as the appellant-father). While on their way, a

tractor bearing No. MP13K1981 driven by Sajjan Singh

(respondent No.1), collided with the motor cycle on which

the appellants were riding. Due to the impact of this

collision the appellants fell down and sustained grievous

2

Page 3

injuries. After medical examination, it was concluded that

all the three appellants had fractured their femur, tibia

and fibula bones on their right leg and had to undergo an operation at National Hospital Bhopal where a rod and a

ring were implanted on each one of their right leg. Upon

further medical examination, it was found that the right

leg of all the three appellants had become one inch shorter

due to the injuries caused to them in the accident.

Therefore, the appellant-minor daughter and the appellant-

father were determined with 30% permanent disability and

the appellant-minor-son was determined with 20% permanent

disability by the doctor who had treated them.

4. A First Information Report was lodged in Mandi Shujalpur

Police Station against the driver (respondent No.1) of the

offending tractor under Sections 279, 337, and 338 of the

Indian Penal Code (in short ‘I.P.C.’).

5. The appellants filed a claim petitions before the Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhopal. The Tribunal after

considering the facts, evidence produced on record and the

circumstances of the case, apportioned contributory

negligence at 50% on the part of the appellant-father who

3

Page 4

was riding the motorcycle on which the appellant-minors

were the pillion riders and 50% on the driver of the

offending tractor.

6. The Tribunal vide its award dated 19.03.2010 ascertained the compensation due to the appellants as per the calculations stated in the table below:

Particulars Kumari Kiran Master Sachin Harinarayan 1. Notional

income Rs.15,000/- p.a.

Rs.15,000/- p.a.

Rs.18,000/- p.a.

2. Multiplier 15 15 15 3. Income for

whole life Rs.2,25,000/- (Rs.15,000/- X

15)

Rs.2,25,000/- (Rs.15,000/- X

15)

Rs.2,70,000/- (Rs.18,000/- X

15) 4. Future loss

of income due to permanent disability

Rs.67,500/- (30% of

Rs.2,25,000/-)

Rs.45,000/- (20% of

Rs.2,25,000/-)

Rs.81,000/- (30% of

Rs.2,70,000/-)

5. Agony Rs.5,000/- Rs.5,000/- Rs.5,000/- 6. Diet Rs.3,000/- Rs.3,000/- Rs.3,000/- 7. Medical

expenses Rs.69,844/- Rs. 84,876/- Rs.1,51,154/- 8. Loss of

income - - Rs.4,500/- 9. Total

compensation under all heads

Rs.1,45,344/- Rs.1,37,876/- Rs.2,44,654/- (Rounded off

to Rs.2,44,500/-)

10 50% deduction towards contributory negligence

Rs.72,672/- Rs.68,938/- Rs.1,22,250/-

11 TOTAL Rs.72,672/- Rs.68,938/- Rs.1,22,250/-

4

Page 5

The Tribunal awarded an interest at the rate of 6% p.a.

on the total compensation.

7. Being aggrieved by the common award passed by the

Tribunal, the appellants filed M.A. Nos. 2575 of 2010, 2574

of 2010 and 2579 of 2010 before the High Court of Madhya

Pradesh at Jabalpur. After considering the facts, evidence

on record and circumstances of the case, the High Court

held that the appellant-minors who were the pillion riders

cannot be held for contributory negligence as apportioned

by the Tribunal even if their appellant-father who was the

motorcyclist was at fault. Therefore, the High Court set

aside the deduction arising out of the contributory

negligence from the compensation determined towards the

permanent disability for the appellant-minors. The High

Court also reduced the contributory negligence on the part

of appellant-father (motorcyclist) from 50% to 25%.

Further, the High Court enhanced the compensation of the

appellant-minor daughter by Rs. 30,000/-, the appellant-

minor-son by Rs.25,000/- and the appellant-father by

Rs.65,000/- (Rs.30,000/- lump sum and Rs.35,000/- towards medical expenses) to be paid with an interest @ Rs.7.5% per

5

Page 6

annum vide its impugned judgment and order dated

06.11.2012. Aggrieved by the impugned Judgment and order,

the appellants filed these appeals.

8. It was contended by Mr. Awadesh Kumar Singh, the learned

counsel for the appellants that: (i) The compensation awarded to the appellants under

the heads of loss of future income was inadequate by taking notional income as only Rs.15,000/- per annum for the appellant-minors and Rs.18,000/- per annum for the appellant- father;

(ii) No compensation has been awarded towards the medical attendants who attended the appellants to take care of them for a period of 3 months treatment after the accident;

(iii) Compensation for permanent disability should have been awarded after considering the enormity of suffering, pain and agony loss of enjoyment of life of the appellants by relying on the principle laid down by this Court in Subulaxmi Vs. M.D., Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation and Anr.1 in which, this Court has held thus:-

“5. At the outset, it is requisite to be stated that the facts as have been adumbrated are not in dispute. Therefore, first we shall advert to the issue whether

1

(2012)10 SCC 177

6

Page 7

the High Court was justified in awarding compensation on a singular head relating to permanent disability and loss of future earning. In K. Suresh v. New India Assurance Co. Limited and Anr. 2012 (10) SCALE 516, after referring to Ramesh Chandra v. Randhir Singh (1990) 3 SCC 723 and B. Kothandapani v. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited (2011) 6 SCC 420, this Court expressed the view that compensation can be granted towards permanent disability as well as loss of future earnings, for one head relates to the impairment of person's capacity and the other relates to the sphere of pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life by the person himself. The Bench also relied upon Laxman v. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Limited and Anr. 2012 ACJ 191, wherein it has been laid down thus: The ratio of the above noted judgments is that if the victim of an accident suffers permanent or temporary disability, then efforts should always be made to award adequate compensation not only for the physical injury and treatment, but also for the pain, suffering and trauma caused due to accident, loss of earnings and victim's inability to lead a normal life and enjoy amenities, which he would have enjoyed but for the disability caused due to the accident. Thus, the view expressed by the High Court on this score is not sustainable.”

9. After considering the contentions of the learned

counsel for both the parties, we are of the view that the

courts below have failed to follow the principles as laid

7

Page 8

down by this Court in the case of Subulaxmi (supra) in

awarding compensation under a singular head towards

permanent disability and loss of future earning to the

appellant-minors and appellant-father.

10. It is stated that the appellant-minors were just 10

and 15 years old at the time of the accident. They have

undergone immense physical pain and suffering as well as

mental shock and trauma at a very tender age. The trauma

undergone by the appellant-minors due to the motor accident

could have a severe and long-lasting effect. The

appellant-minors and their parents will have to make

arrangements to support their disability in the future. No

amount of monetary benefit will compensate for the

suffering and pain that the appellant-minors have to endure

to overcome the probable shackles of their disability in

the future. The appellant-father suffers from 30% permanent

disability due to the shortening of his right leg by one

inch after injuries sustained by them in the motor vehicle

accident. Both the children are suffering from permanent

disability due to this motor vehicle accident. The

appellant-father has and continues to undergo loss, pain

8

Page 9

and suffering in many ways due to this accident. Therefore,

when the question of compensation arises in the case of

permanent disablement suffered by the appellants due to a

motor accident, we refer to the principles laid down by

this Court in the case of R.D. Hattangadi vs Pest Control

(India) Pvt. Ltd2, wherein it was held as under:-

“9.Broadly speaking while fixing an amount of compensation payable to a victim of an accident, the damages have to be assessed separately as pecuniary damages and special damages. Pecuniary damages are those which the victim has actually incurred and which are capable of being calculated in terms of money; whereas non-pecuniary damages are those which are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. In order to appreciate two concepts pecuniary damages may include expenses incurred by the claimant: (i) medical attendance; (ii) loss of earning of profit up to the date of trial; (iii) other material loss. So far non- pecuniary damages are concerned, they may include (i) damages for mental and physical shock, pain and suffering, already suffered or likely to be suffered in future; (ii) damages to compensate for the loss of amenities of life which may include a variety of matters i.e. on account of injury the claimant may not be able to walk, run or sit; (iii) damages for the loss of expectation of life, i.e., on account of injury the normal longevity of the person concerned is shortened; (iv) inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life.”

2

(1995) 1 SCC 551

9

Page 10

Therefore, quantification of damages divided under

different heads as mentioned in the above case must be very

carefully observed by the courts while awarding

compensation to the victims of motor-vehicle accidents. It

is extremely essential for the courts to consider the two

main components of damages i.e. both pecuniary and non-

pecuniary damages as per the guidelines laid down by this

Court in the above case so that the just and reasonable

compensation is awarded to the injured.

11. Further, with respect to just compensation to be

awarded to the victims of motor-vehicle accidents, we refer

to the decision of this Court in the case of Raj Kumar vs

Ajay Kumar & Anr. 3, wherein it was held as under:-

“5. The provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (`Act' for short) makes it clear that the award must be just, which means that compensation should, to the extent possible, fully and adequately restore the claimant to the position prior to the accident. The object of awarding damages is to make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong done as far as money can do so, in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner. The court or tribunal shall have to assess the damages objectively and exclude from consideration any speculation or fancy, though some

3

(2011)1 SCC 343

10

Page 11

conjecture with reference to the nature of disability and its consequences, is inevitable. A person is not only to be compensated for the physical injury, but also for the loss which he suffered as a result of such injury. This means that he is to be compensated for his inability to lead a full life, his inability to enjoy those normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries, and his inability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned.”

Thus, the compensation should be reasonably sufficient so

that it equips the victim to return to their normal life to

the maximum possible extent. The Tribunal and the High

Court have failed to show compassion to the appellant-

minors and appellant-father by not examining the above

relevant aspect of the case on hand and not following the

guidelines as laid down by this Court to determine just and

reasonable compensation in the cases referred to supra.

With regard to the appellant-minors 12. With respect to compensation towards future loss of

income due to permanent disability for appellant-minors, we

refer to the case of Master Mallikarjun v. Divisional

11

Page 12

Manager, the National Insurance Company Limited & Anr.4,

wherein this Court held as under:- “8. It is unfortunate that both the Tribunal and the High Court have not properly appreciated the medical evidence available in the case. The age of the child and deformities on his body resulting in disability, have not been duly taken note of. As held by this Court in R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. [(1995) 1 SCC 551], while assessing the non-pecuniary damages, the damages for mental and physical shock, pain and suffering already suffered and that are likely to be suffered, any future damages for the loss of amenities in life like difficulty in running, participation in active sports, etc., damages on account of inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration, etc., have to be addressed especially in the case of a child victim. For a child, the best part of his life is yet to come. While considering the claim by a victim child, it would be unfair and improper to follow the structured formula as per the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act for reasons more than one. The main stress in the formula is on pecuniary damages. For children there is no income. The only indication in the Second Schedule for non-earning persons is to take the notional income as Rs. 15,000/- per year. A child cannot be equated to such a non-earning person. Therefore, the compensation is to be worked out under the non- pecuniary heads in addition to the actual amounts incurred for treatment done and/or to be done, transportation, assistance of attendant, etc. The main elements of damage in the case of child victims are the pain, shock, frustration, deprivation of ordinary pleasures and enjoyment associated with healthy and mobile limbs. The

4

AIR 2014 SC 736

12

Page 13

compensation awarded should enable the child to acquire something or to develop a lifestyle which will offset to some extent the inconvenience or discomfort arising out of the disability. Appropriate compensation for disability should take care of all the non-pecuniary damages. In other words, apart from this head, there shall only be the claim for the actual expenditure for treatment, attendant, transportation, etc.

(Emphasis laid by this Court)

The Tribunal has calculated the future loss of income by

taking the notional income of each the appellant-minor as

Rs.15,000/- per annum. We are of the considered view that a

child’s notional income cannot be ascertained as per the

figure given for a non-earning individuals in the second

schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. As the Tribunal

and the High Court have not followed the principles laid

down by this Court in the above case by awarding loss of

future income due to permanent disability, therefore, we

set aside the same. Further, reiterating the same

principles as held in Master Mallikarjun’s case (supra), we

award Rs.1,00,000/- each towards shock, pain and suffering

(non-pecuniary head) in place of loss of future income due

to permanent disability. Further, in Master Mallikarjun

13

Page 14

case (supra) with respect to compensation for permanent

disability this Court held thus:- “12. Though, it is difficult to have an accurate assessment of the compensation in the case of children suffering disability on account of a motor vehicle accident, having regard to the relevant factors, precedents and the approach of various High Courts, we are of the view that the appropriate compensation on all other heads in addition to the actual expenditure for treatment, attendant, etc., should be, if the disability is above 10% and upto 30% to the whole body, Rs.3 lakhs; upto 60%, Rs.4 lakhs; upto 90%, Rs.5 lakhs and above 90%, it should be Rs.6 lakhs. For permanent disability upto 10%, it should be Rs.1 lakh, unless there are exceptional circumstances to take different yardstick...”

Hence, this Court in accordance with the principles laid

down by this Court in the above case (supra), and after

examining the facts, evidence on record and circumstances

of the case on hand, we deem it fit and proper to award

Rs.3,00,000/- towards permanent disability of the

appellant-minors viz. Kumari Kiran and Master Sachin, since

they have suffered 30% and 20% permanent disability

respectively, due to the shortening of their right leg by

one inch after the injuries sustained in the motor

accident. Further, upon considering the age of appellant-

14

Page 15

minors, they have a long journey ahead of them in their

lives, during which they along with their parents will have

to endure an immeasurable amount of agony and uncertain

medical expenses due to this motor-vehicle accident. Thus,

based on the principles laid down in the above case, we

award Rs.25,000/- each towards agony to parents and

Rs.25,000/- each towards future medical expenses.

With regard to the appellant-father 13. With regard to the apportionment of contributory

negligence at 25% on the part of the appellant-father and

75% on the driver of the offending tractor as determined by

the High Court, we refer to the judgment of this Court in

Juju Kuruvila & Ors. v. Kunjujamma Mohan & Ors.5 as it is

applicable to facts of the case on hand. In the above case,

Joy Kuruvila (the deceased) had a head-on collision with a

bus approaching from the opposite side. Joy Kuruvila

sustained serious injuries and died on the way to the

hospital. The Tribunal found that the accident occurred

due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver. It

apportioned the contributory negligence between the driver 5

(2013)9 SCC 166

15

Page 16

and the deceased in the ratio of 75:25%. On the basis of

the pleadings & evidence on record, in the above said case,

this Court has held thus on the negligence of the driver of

the bus:-

“20.5. The mere position of the vehicles after accident, as shown in a scene mahazar, cannot give a substantial proof as to the rash and negligent driving on the part of one or the other. When two vehicles coming from opposite directions collide, the position of the vehicles and its direction, etc. depends on a number of factors like the speed of vehicles, intensity of collision, reason for collision, place at which one vehicle hit the other, etc. From the scene of the accident, one may suggest or presume the manner in which the accident was caused, but in the absence of any direct or corroborative evidence, no conclusion can be drawn as to whether there was negligence on the part of the driver. In absence of such direct or corroborative evidence, the Court cannot give any specific finding about negligence on the part of any individual.

20.6. The post mortem report, Ext. A-5 shows the condition of the deceased at the time of death. The said report reflects that the deceased had already taken meal and his stomach was half-full and contained rice, vegetables and meat pieces in a fluid with strong smell of spirit. The aforesaid evidence, Ext.A-5 clearly suggests that the deceased had taken liquor but on the basis of the same, no definite finding can be given that the deceased was driving the car rashly and negligently at the time of the accident. The mere suspicion based on Ext. B-2 “scene mahazar” and

16

Page 17

Ext. A-5 post-mortem report cannot take the place of evidence, particularly, when the direct evidence like PW3 (independent eyewitness), Ext. B-1 (FI statement) are on record.”

The observations made by this Court in the case of Juju

Kuruvila (supra) surely apply to the fact situation on

hand. Upon thorough examination of the facts and legal

evidence on record in the present case, it cannot be said

that the appellant-father was rash and negligent just on

the assumption made by the Tribunal that the collision

occurred in the middle of the road since the two vehicles

were approaching from opposite directions of the road.

However, the only aspect of the case on hand that we can

reasonably assume is that the appellant-father would have

taken sufficient caution while riding the motorcycle since

he was travelling with his two minor children (appellant-

minors). Further, upon examining the evidence produced on

record, there is no proof showing negligence on the part of

the appellant-father. Thus in our view, the contributory

negligence apportioned by the High Court at 25% on the

appellant-father and 75% on the driver of the offending

tractor is erroneous keeping in view the legal principles

17

Page 18

laid down by this Court on this aspect in the above

referred case. Thus, we are of the firm conclusion that the

negligence is wholly on the part of the driver of the

offending tractor since he was driving the heavier vehicle.

Therefore, we set aside the 25% contributory negligence on

the part of the appellant-father as apportioned by the High

Court.

14. Further, the courts below have erred in ascertaining

the notional income of appellant-father at Rs.1,500/- per

month i.e. Rs.18,000/- per annum. On examining the facts,

evidence produced on record and circumstances of the case

on hand, the appellant-father owns 30 bighas of irrigated

land in which he was doing agricultural work as per

Exhibit-79 Kishtban Khtoni. Keeping in mind the same, the

notional income ascertained by the courts below is too

less. In our opinion, the appellant-father’s notional

income must be at least Rs.5,000/- per month i.e.

Rs.60,000/- per annum. Thus, his loss of future income due

to 30% permanent disability suffered by him due to the

injuries sustained in this accident, taking the appropriate

18

Page 19

multiplier of 15 (as per Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi

Transport Corporation & Anr.6), would be Rs.2,70,000/- (15

X [30% of 60,000/-]).

15. The courts below have erred in awarding an amount of

Rs. 5000/- only towards pain and suffering caused to the

appellant-father due to the motor-vehicle accident. The

award towards non-pecuniary heads must be ascertained after

careful reflection upon the facts and circumstances of the

case on hand as opined by this Court in this aspect in R.D.

Hattangadi’s case(supra). Therefore, keeping in mind the

loss suffered by the appellant-father due to 30% permanent

disability and circumstances of the case on hand and

principles laid down by this Court in the above case, we

award Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering of the

appellant-father. We further award Rs.50,000/- towards loss

of amenities undergone by the appellant-father as per the

principles laid down in Sri Nagarajappa v. The Divisional Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. 7 .

6

(2009)6 SCC 121 7

19

Page 20

With regard to all the appellant-claimants 16. We are of the opinion, that the appellants without

doubt need sufficient nutrition in order to ensure their

good health, especially considering the appellant-minors

who are just over 10 and 15 years of age. As the Tribunal

and the High Court have erred in awarding a meagre amount

of Rs.3,000/- to each one of the appellants towards special

food and nutrition, instead we award Rs.10,000/- each

towards the same. 17. In our considered view of the facts of the case, it is

clear that medical attendants were taken for the

appellants’ care for 3 months during their treatment and

rest period. The Tribunal and the High Court have erred in

not awarding compensation towards the same. Therefore, we

award Rs.9,000/- each towards attendant’s charges

(Rs.3,000/- per month for each attendant) and Rs. 5,000/-

each towards transportation charges.

18. The compensation awarded to the appellants towards

medical expenses by the Tribunal and enhancement of the

20

Page 21

same by the High Court to the appellant-father is

maintained.

19. Further, we are of the view that the Tribunal and the

High Court have erred in granting interest rate at only 6%

p.a. and 7.5% p.a. respectively on the total compensation

amount instead of 9% p.a. by applying the decision of this

Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Association of

Victims of Uphaar Tragedy8. Accordingly, we award the interest @9% p.a. on the compensation determined in these

appeals.

20. In the result, the appellants shall be entitled to compensation

under the different heads as per the following table:

Particulars Kumari Kiran Master Sachin Harinarayan 1.

Loss of future income due to disability

- - Rs.2,70,000/-

2. Pain and suffering Rs.1,00,000/- Rs.1,00,000/- Rs.50,000/-

3. Agony to parents Rs.25,000/- Rs.25,000/- -

4. Medical Expenses Rs.69,844/- Rs.84,876/- Rs.1,86,154/-

5. Attendant Rs.9,000/- Rs.9,000/- Rs.9,000/-

6. Transportation Rs.5,000/- Rs.5,000/- Rs.5,000/-

7. Special diet and nutrition Rs.10,000/- Rs.10,000/- Rs.10,000/-

8

21

Page 22

8. Permanent Disability/ loss of amenities

Rs.3,00,000/- Rs.3,00,000/- Rs.50,000/-

9. Future medical expenses Rs.25,000/- Rs.25,000/- -

TOTAL Rs.5,43,844/- Rs.5,58,876/- Rs.5,80,154/-

Thus, the total compensation payable to all the appellants

by the respondent Insurance Company will be as per the

total amount indicated in the preceding table with interest

@ 9% from the date of filing of the application till the

date of payment. 21. Accordingly, we allow these appeals with the following

directions: (i) C.A.@SLP(c) no.21666 of 2013

(a) The respondent Insurance Company is directed

to deposit a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- with

proportionate interest for a period of 3 years

with the liberty to the appellant-minor,

Kumari Kiran to withdraw the same by filing an

application for her education, development and

welfare;

22

Page 23

(b) The remaining amount of Rs.1,43,844/- with

proportionate interest shall be paid to the

appellant-minor through her father by way of

either a demand draft or deposited with the

Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal within six

weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of

this judgment. (ii) C.A.@SLP(c) no. 21670 of 2013

(a) The respondent Insurance Company is directed

to deposit a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- with

proportionate interest for a period of 3 years

with the liberty to the appellant (who may

have become a major) Sachin to withdraw the

same by filing an application for his

education, development and welfare; (b) The remaining amount of Rs.1,58,876/- with

proportionate interest shall be paid to him by

way of either a demand draft or deposited with

the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal within six

weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of

this judgment.

23

Page 24

(iii) C.A.@SLP(c) no. 21671 of 2013 The respondent Insurance Company is directed to

either pay Rs.5,80,154/- by way of demand

draft/drafts in favour of the appellant-father

Harinarayan or deposit the same with interest as

awarded, before the Motor Accidents Claims

Tribunal after deducting the amount already paid,

if any, to the appellant within six weeks from the

date of receipt of the copy of this judgment.

All the appeals are allowed in the terms as indicated

in the table above with interest. No costs.

…………………………………………………………J. [V.GOPALA GOWDA]

………………………………………………………J. [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL]

New Delhi, September 11, 2014

24

Page 25

ITEM NO.1A-For Judgment COURT NO.12 SECTION IVA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

CIVIL APPEAL NO.8632 OF 2014 (Arising out of SLP(C) NO. 21666 OF 2013)

KUMARI KIRAN THR. HER FATHER HARINARAYAN … APPELLANT

Vs. SAJJAN SINGH & ORS. … RESPONDENTS

WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.8633 OF 2014

(Arising out of SLP(C) NO. 21670 OF 2013) AND

CIVIL APPEAL NO.8634 OF 2014 (Arising out of SLP(C) NO. 21671 OF 2013)

Date : 11/09/2014 These appeals were called on for judgment today.

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Awadhesh Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. R. D. Upadhyay,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Chander Shekhar Ashri,Adv.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.Gopala Gowda pronounced the judgment of the Bench comprising His Lordship and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel.

Leave granted. The appeals are allowed in terms of the signed order.

(VINOD KUMAR) (MALA KUMARI SHARMA)

COURT MASTER COURT MASTER (Signed Non-Reportable judgment is placed on the file)

25