advocatemmmohan

My photo

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN -  Practicing both IN CIVIL, CRIMINAL AND FAMILY LAWS,Etc.,

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - FOR KNOWLEDGE IN LAW & FOR LEGAL OPINIONS - SHARE THIS

Friday, October 4, 2013

M.V. ACT = WONDERFUL JUDGEMENT VVV IMPORTANT = Apex court enhanced the compensation to Rs. 16 lakhs - just compensation even though there is no prayer in the claim petition to that extent as they filed application claiming compensation under Section 166 of the M.V. Act. = loss of care and guidance for minor children & loss of consortium = Rs.1,00,000/- must be added under the head of loss of consortium and Rs.1,00,000 under the head of loss of care and guidance for minor children. Further, it was held by this Court in the case referred to supra that Rs.25,000/- must be awarded for funeral expenses as this Court has made observations in the case referred to supra that the tribunals have been frugal in awarding the compensation under the head ‘funeral expenses’ and hence, we award Rs.25,000 under the head of funeral expenses to the claimants/legal representatives .; Increase of income for private employees ranging from 30% to 50% = an addition of 30% increase must be applied for increase in total income of the deceased over a period of time if he had been alive. Further, in the recent decision in Rajesh & Ors. V. Rajbir Singh[6], this Court while referring to the case of Santosh Devi (supra) held that in the case of self-employed persons or persons with fixed wages, in case the deceased victim was below 40 years, there must be an addition of 50% to the actual income of the deceased while computing future prospects of the deceased. ; How to determine the income of deceased = The State Government in exercise of its statutory power under Section 3 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 must issue a notification for fixing the wages of a polisher. Even in the absence of such a notification, both the Tribunal as well as the High Court should have at least taken the income of the deceased as Rs.40,000/- per annum as per the table provided in the IInd Schedule to Section 163-A of the M.V. Act for the purpose of determining just, fair and reasonable compensation under the heading loss of dependency of the appellants, though the said amount is applicable only to the claims under no fault liability. ; Therefore, this Court has awarded just and reasonable compensation in favour of the appellants as they filed application claiming compensation under Section 166 of the M.V. Act. Keeping in view the aforesaid relevant facts and legal evidence on record and in the absence of rebuttal evidence adduced by the respondent, we determine just and reasonable compensation by awarding a total sum of Rs. 16,96,000/- with interest @ 7.5% from the date of filing the claim petition till the date payment is made to the appellants. “There is no restriction that compensation could be awarded only up to the amount claimed by the claimant. In an appropriate case, where from the evidence brought on record if the Tribunal/court considers that the claimant is entitled to get more compensation than claimed, the Tribunal may pass such award. The only embargo is — it should be “just” compensation, that is to say, it should be neither arbitrary, fanciful nor unjustifiable from the evidence. This would be clear by reference to the relevant provisions of the MV Act. Section 166 provides that an application for compensation arising out of an accident involving the death of, or bodily injury to, persons arising out of the use of motor vehicles, or damages to any property of a third party so arising, or both, could be made (a) by the person who has sustained the injury; or (b) by the owner of the property; or (c) where death has resulted from the accident, by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased; or (d) by any agent duly authorised by the person injured or all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased, as the case may be.”= Accordingly, the appeal is allowed on the above said terms. The respondent is directed to pay the enhanced compensation in this appeal with interest awarded, in favour of the appellants in the following ratio. 75% of the awarded amount shall be paid equally in favour of appellant Nos. 1 to 3 and the remaining 25% must be in the name of appellant Nos. 4 and 5 in equal proportion with proportionate interest. Out of the 75%, each of appellant Nos. 1 to 3 will get 25% and further, 10% of the share of appellant No.2 and 10% of the share of appellant No.3 must be deposited with proportional interest payable to each one of them in any Nationalized Bank of their choice and the rest 15% of each of their award amounts, with proportionate interest to be paid to them. The appellant Nos. 2 and 3 are at liberty to move the Tribunal to release the money so deposited for their welfare and developmental purpose. The above said direction regarding the payment and deposit shall be made within six weeks by depositing it in the Bank and disburse the amount by way of demand draft drawn in the name of each one of them as directed above. There will be no order as to costs.

PUBLISHED IN http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=40844




                   IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA                      CIVIL
           APPELLATE JURISDICTION




       CIVIL APPEAL NO.8251 OF 2013             (Arising  out of SLP (C)
                             No. 36602 of 2012)




SANOBANU NAZIRBHAI MIRZA & ORS.         ... APPELLANTS

                              VS.

AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL TRANSPORT SERVICE   ... RESPONDENT





                               J U D G M E N T



V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.

      Leave granted.




2.    The legal representatives of the deceased  Nazirbhai  who  died  in  a
road accident on 30th May, 1998 were aggrieved by  the  judgment  and  order
dated 11.01.2012 of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in  First  Appeal
No. 1549 of 2002 wherein the High Court had partly  allowed  the  appeal  of
the respondent and  reduced  the  compensation  awarded  in  favour  of  the
claimants by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (in  short  ‘the  Tribunal’)
at Ahmedabad in MACP No. 563 of 1998 dated 23.10.2001 from Rs.3,51,300/-  to
Rs.2,51,800/-  with a direction to the appellants-claimants  to  refund  the
excess amount of Rs.99,500/- along with the interest at the rate of  9%  per
annum.  The appellants-claimants  have  filed  this  appeal  urging  certain
grounds and prayed for setting aside the impugned judgment and award  passed
by the High Court.

3.    The brief facts of this case are stated below to appreciate the  rival
claims of the parties:

      On 30.05.1998, the deceased Nazirbhai was going on his bicycle to  his
contract work of  polishing  at  about  10.30  a.m.  at  the  house  of  one
Rashidbhai Pathan in  Haranwali  Pole.   While  he  was  waiting  for  other
labourers at Kalidas Mill Kachha cross road with a bicycle, at  about  10.45
a.m.,  one  Ahmedabad  Municipal  Transport  Service  (AMTS)   bus   bearing
registration No. GJ-1-TT-8337 came with high speed in a rash  and  negligent
manner in the one-way and hit him with its front  portion  and  knocked  him
down and caused bodily injuries. He was  crushed  under  the  wheel  of  his
bicycle and later succumbed to his injuries at 6.00 p.m  on  the  same  day.
The legal heirs of the deceased - his widow,  his  minor  children  and  his
parents filed a claim petition before the Tribunal  for  awarding  just  and
reasonable compensation wherein the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 3,51,300/-
 along with interest @ 9% per  annum  from  the  date  of  application  till
realization.
The respondent aggrieved by the  judgment  and  award  of  the
Tribunal filed  an  appeal  in  the  High  Court  urging  for  reduction  of
compensation awarded in favour of the  claimants  on  the  ground  that  the
Tribunal has committed an error on facts and in law in assessing the  income
of the deceased on the basis of the IInd schedule to Section  163-A  of  the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short the  M.V.  Act)  and  that  the  accident
being of the year 1998, income should have been assessed as Rs.15,000/-  per
annum.
The High Court partly allowed  the  appeal  of  the  respondent  and
reduced the compensation  to  Rs.2,51,800/-  and  ordered  that  the  excess
amount of Rs.99,500/-  shall  be  returned  to  the  respondent  along  with
interest @ 9% per annum.  
Being  aggrieved  by  this  judgment  and  award
passed by the High Court, the legal representatives of  the  deceased  filed
this  civil  appeal  urging  various  grounds  and  legal  contentions   and
requested this Court to set  aside  the  impugned  judgment  and  award  and
further, award just and reasonable compensation by  modifying  the  judgment
of the Tribunal.

4.    It is urged by the learned  counsel  for  the  appellants,  Ms.  Saroj
Raichura,  that  the  Gujarat  High  Court  in  exercise  of  its  appellate
jurisdiction has modified the judgment and  award  passed  by  the  Tribunal
after a long lapse of 11-12 years, which is in violation  of  the  right  to
life and natural justice and statutory rights of the  appellants  under  the
provisions of the M.V.Act.
Another ground urged is that the High Court  was
not right in holding that the compensation awarded by  the  learned  Members
of the Tribunal is excessive and consequently, the direction issued  to  the
appellants to refund an amount of Rs.99,500/- along with an interest  of  9%
interest after long lapse of 11 years is wholly unsustainable in law.
It  is
submitted that at the time of death the deceased was aged 25 years  and  was
hale and hearty and  would  have  lived  long,  had  he  not  met  with  the
accident. Prior to the accident, he was engaged in  the  work  of  polishing
and colouring and was earning Rs.4,000/- to Rs.5,000/- per month and he  was
good at his work and would have progressed in the future.
 It is urged  that
since the  appellant  No.3  was  born  after  the  death  of  the  deceased,
compensation under the head of loss of fatherhood should  also  be  awarded.
The further legal contention urged is that the High  Court  interfered  with
the judgment and award by reducing the  compensation  after  11  long  years
even though the Tribunal  after  proper  appreciation  of  facts  and  legal
evidence on record has rightly awarded the compensation.   The  same  should
not have been interfered with by the High  Court  in  the  exercise  of  its
appellate jurisdiction.
Therefore,  the  appellants  have  approached  this
Court to set aside the impugned judgment and order of  the  High  Court  and
prayed to pass an order awarding just and reasonable compensation.

5.    We have carefully examined the correctness of  the  impugned  judgment
and award passed by the High Court of Gujarat in exercise of  its  appellate
jurisdiction with a view to find out whether the interference  of  the  High
Court with the quantum of  compensation  awarded  by  the  Tribunal  in  its
judgment is legal, valid and justified and further, as to  what  amount  the
claimants are entitled to.  We have also perused the judgment passed by  the
Tribunal on the basis of pleadings and evidence on  record  wherein  it  has
recorded  the  categorical  finding  of  fact  holding  that  the   deceased
sustained bodily injuries in a road traffic accident on 30.05.1998 at  about
10.30 a.m. while he was going to attend his contract work  of  polishing  at
the house of one Rashidbhai Pathan in Haranwali Pole.  While he was  waiting
for the other labourers at Kalidas Mill Kachha cross road  with  a  bicycle,
at that point of time at about 10.45 a.m. one AMTS bus bearing  registration
No. GJ-1-TT-8337 came at high speed in a rash and negligent  manner  in  the
one-way and hit him with its front portion and knocked him down  and  caused
grievous bodily injuries. He was crushed under the wheel of his bicycle  and
later succumbed to the injuries at 6.00 p.m. The finding is recorded by  the
Tribunal on the basis  of  legal  evidence  on  record  and  held  that  the
accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the  offending
vehicle by its driver and the deceased sustained injuries and  succumbed  to
them on the evening of the same day. The above said finding of fact has  not
been set aside by the appellate  authority  in  exercise  of  its  appellate
jurisdiction.

6.    The Tribunal has taken a sum of Rs. 15,000/- per annum as provided  in
the IInd schedule to Section 163-A of the M.V. Act  as  notional  income  on
the basis of ratio laid down by the  Gujarat  High  Court  in  the  case  of
Ritaben @ Vanitaben & Anr.  Vs.  Ahmedabad  Municipal  Transport  Service  &
Anr.[1] wherein it has held that a datum figure  is  required  to  be  taken
into consideration for compensation in fatal cases.  The  same  was  applied
to the case on hand by the Tribunal and further  Rs.30,000/-  was  added  to
this figure which was then divided by 2 such  that  the  net  yearly  income
comes to  Rs.22,500/-  out  of  which  1/3rd  amount  was  deducted  towards
personal  expenses  and  maintenance  of  the  deceased  and  thus  the  net
awardable dependency was calculated  at Rs.15,000/- per annum.
The  case  of
S.Chandra & Ors. Vs. Pallavan Transport Corporation[2], of  this  Court  has
also been referred to regarding  the average life expectancy,  wherein  this
Court has taken  20 as multiplier in case of the  deceased  aged  42  years.
Adverting to the case  of  General  Manager,  Kerala  State  Road  Transport
Corporation, Trivendrum Vs. Susamma Thomas & Ors.[3], this  Court  discussed
the method to be followed to determine the multiplier  to  the  multiplicand
and taken multiplier of 12 in a case where the deceased was aged  39  years.
However,  the  Tribunal  after  referring  to  S.  Chandra’s  case   (supra)
preferred to rely on the same for taking multiplier of 20  in  the  case  of
the deceased at the time  of  death  as  he  was  aged  about  25  years  as
reflected in the post mortem report. 
Therefore,  the  future  economic  loss
awardable to the appellants was calculated  at  Rs.3,00,000/-.
Thereafter,
following  the  decision  in  the  case  of  Gujarat  State  Road  Transport
Corporation Vs. Suryakantaben D. Acharya  &  Ors.[4]
 wherein  the  Gujarat
High Court ruled that the conventional amount was required to be  raised  to
Rs.20,000/- from Rs.10,000/- having regard to the rise in prices and  higher
rate of inflation which is  a  common  phenomenon  in  Indian  economy,  the
Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards loss  of  expectancy  of  life
and Rs.500/- towards medical expenses.
 Since  no  evidence  was  produced
before the Tribunal by the appellants  to  sustain  the  medical  claim  and
attendant charges of Rs.2000/- therefore, the Tribunal  has  held  that  the
claim was on the higher side and it has awarded a sum  of  Rs.500/-  towards
attendant charges. Further,  Rs.300/-  was  awarded  towards  transportation
charges since  the  appellants  have  not  adduced  evidence  to  show  that
Rs.2000/- was spent towards transportation of the dead body. The  award  has
been interfered with by the High Court in  the  impugned  judgment  and  the
compensation was reduced to Rs.2,51,000/- taking  only  notional  income  of
Rs.15,000/- per annum as provided in the IInd Schedule to Section  163-A  of
the M.V. Act and  deducted  1/5th  amount  towards  personal  expenses.  The
dependency benefit is taken to Rs.12,000/- per annum and 18  multiplier  was
applied and awarded  a  sum  of  Rs.2,16,000  and  another  Rs.10,000/-  was
awarded towards loss of consortium,  Rs.10,000/-  towards  loss  to  estate,
Rs.5000/- towards funeral  expenses,  Rs.5,000/-  towards  pain,  shock  and
suffering,  Rs.500/-  towards  attendant  charges   and   Rs.300/-   towards
transportation  charges.   The  total  compensation  of  Rs.2,51,800/-   was
awarded by the High Court  by  modifying  the  judgment  and  award  of  the
Tribunal which has awarded a compensation of Rs.3,51,300/-  and further  the
High  Court  directed  the   appellants  to  refund  an  excess  amount   of
Rs.99,500/- with interest at the rate of 9% per  annum  to  the  respondent.
The same was rightly challenged by  the  appellants  before  this  Court  by
filing this appeal urging various grounds.

7.    In our considered view, the approach of both the Tribunal as  well  as
the High Court in taking notional income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/-  per
annum to which Rs.30,000/- was added and divided by 2 bringing it to  a  net
yearly income of Rs.22,500/- which has been interfered  with  by  the   High
Court by taking Rs.15,000/- as notional income on  the  basis  of  the  IInd
Schedule to the Section 163-A of the M.V. Act is an  erroneous  approach  to
determine  just  and  reasonable  compensation  in  favour  of   the   legal
representatives of the deceased who was  the  sole  earning  member  of  the
family.
It is an  undisputed  fact  that  the  deceased  was  working  as  a
polisher, which is a skilled job.  
This important aspect of the case of  the
appellants was not taken into consideration by both the Tribunal as well  as
the High Court, thereby they have gravely erred by taking such low  notional
income of the deceased though there is evidence  on  record  and  the  claim
petition was filed under Section 166  of  the  M.V.  Act.   
The  High  Court
taking Rs.15,000/- per annum as the  notional  income  and  deducting  1/5th
towards personal expenses which would come to Rs.12,000/-  is  not  only  an
erroneous approach of the High Court but  is  also  vitiated  in  law.
The
finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal in  the  absence  of  any  rebuttal
evidence to show that the deceased was not working as a polisher and  it  is
not a skilled work is also an erroneous finding for  the  reason  that  both
the Tribunal and the High court have not assigned reason for  not  accepting
the evidence on record with regard to the nature  of  work  that  was  being
performed by  the  deceased.
The  State  Government  in  exercise  of  its
statutory power under Section 3 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 must issue  a
notification for fixing the wages of a polisher.  Even  in  the  absence  of
such a notification, both the Tribunal as well  as  the  High  Court  should
have at least taken the income of the deceased as Rs.40,000/- per  annum  as
per the table provided in the IInd Schedule to Section  163-A  of  the  M.V.
Act for the purpose of determining just, fair  and  reasonable  compensation
under the heading loss of dependency of  the  appellants,  though  the  said
amount is applicable only to the claims under no fault liability. 
 If  1/5th
amount  is  deducted  out  of  the  above  annual   income   the   resultant
multiplicand would be Rs.32,000/- per annum.   Both  the  Tribunal  and  the
High Court should have proceeded on the aforesaid basis and  determined  the
compensation under the heading loss of dependency of the appellants.

8.    In view of the aforesaid fact, we have to hold that it would  be  just
and proper for this Court to take a sum of Rs.5000/- as the  monthly  income
of the deceased having regard to the nature of job  that  the  deceased  was
performing as a polisher, which is a skilled job, wherein the annual  income
would come to Rs.60,000/-.
This  Court  in  judgment  of  Santosh  Devi  V.
National Insurance Co. Ltd.& Ors.[5],  has held  that  an  addition  of  30%
increase must be applied for increase in total income of the  deceased  over
a period of time if he had been alive. Further, in the  recent  decision  in
Rajesh & Ors. V. Rajbir Singh[6], this Court while referring to the case  of
Santosh Devi (supra) held that in  the  case  of  self-employed  persons  or
persons with fixed wages, in case the deceased victim was  below  40  years,
there must be an addition of 50% to the actual income of the deceased  while
computing future prospects  of  the  deceased.  Keeping  in  view  the  five
dependants of the deceased in the case  on  hand,  1/5th  amount  is  to  be
deducted towards  personal  expenses.  Having  regard  to  the  age  of  the
deceased as 25, as mentioned in the post mortem report, which age  is  taken
by both the Tribunal as well as the High Court,  and  keeping  in  mind  the
life expectancy of the deceased, multiplier of 20 must  be  applied  to  the
multiplicand for the purpose of quantifying loss  of  dependancy.   Further,
following the decision of this Court in  Rajesh  V.  Rajbir  Singh  (supra),
Rs.1,00,000/- must be added  under  the  head  of  loss  of  consortium  and
Rs.1,00,000 under the head of loss of care and guidance for minor  children.
Further, it was held by this Court  in  the  case  referred  to  supra  that
Rs.25,000/- must be awarded for funeral expenses  as  this  Court  has  made
observations in the case referred to supra  that  the  tribunals  have  been
frugal in awarding the compensation under the head  ‘funeral  expenses’  and
hence, we award  Rs.25,000  under  the  head  of  funeral  expenses  to  the
claimants/legal representatives .

Hence, the total compensation has to be assessed under the various heads  as
follows:

|Sl No.  |HEADS                          |CALCULATIONS                    |
|(i)     |Income                         |Rs.5,000/- p.m.                 |
|(ii)    |50% of above to be added as    |[Rs.5,000+Rs.2,500]             |
|        |future prospects               |=Rs.7,500/-  p.m.               |
|(iii)   |1/5th of (ii) to be deducted as|       [Rs.7,500-Rs.1,500/-]    |
|        |personal expenses of the       |.          =Rs.6,000/-  p.m.    |
|        |deceased                       |                                |
|(iv)    |Compensation after multiplier  |[Rs.6,000/-x12x20]              |
|        |of 20 is applied               |=Rs.14,40,000/-                 |
|(v)     |Loss of consortium             |Rs.1,00,000/-                   |
|(vi)    |Loss of care and guidance for  |Rs.1,00,000/-                   |
|        |minor children                 |                                |
|(vii)   |Funeral and obsequies expenses |Rs.25,000/-                     |
|(ix)    |Pain, loss and suffering       |Rs.25,000/-                     |
|(x)     |Medical expenses               |Rs.3,000/-                      |
|(xi)    |Attendant charges and          |Rs.3,000/-                      |
|        |transportation expenses        |                                |
|                                         |                                |
|TOTAL COMPENSATION AWARDED               |Rs. 16,96,000/-                 |




      The amount of Rs.16,96,000/- as calculated above, under   the  various
heads of losses,  should  be  awarded  in  favour  of  appellants-claimants,
though there is no specific mention regarding enhancing of  compensation  as
in the appeal it has been basically  requested  by  the  appellants  to  set
aside the judgment and order passed by the High Court in  the  appeal  filed
by the respondent. 
We must  follow  the  legal  principles  of  Nagappa  Vs.
Gurudayal Singh & Ors.[7] at para 7, wherein with respect to the  provisions
of the M.V. Act, this Court has observed as under:



           “There is no restriction that compensation could be awarded only
           up to the amount claimed by  the  claimant.  In  an  appropriate
           case,  where  from  the  evidence  brought  on  record  if   the
           Tribunal/court considers that the claimant is  entitled  to  get
           more compensation than  claimed,  the  Tribunal  may  pass  such
           award. The only embargo is — it should be  “just”  compensation,
           that is to say, it should be  neither  arbitrary,  fanciful  nor
           unjustifiable  from  the  evidence.  This  would  be  clear   by
           reference to the relevant provisions of the MV Act. Section  166
           provides that an application for compensation arising out of  an
           accident involving the death of, or bodily  injury  to,  persons
           arising out of the use of motor  vehicles,  or  damages  to  any
           property of a third party so arising, or both, could be made (a)
           by the person who has sustained the injury; or (b) by the  owner
           of the property; or  (c)  where  death  has  resulted  from  the
           accident, by all or any of  the  legal  representatives  of  the
           deceased; or (d) by any agent  duly  authorised  by  the  person
           injured or all or  any  of  the  legal  representatives  of  the
           deceased, as the case may be.”






        In view of the aforesaid decision of this Court, we are of the  view
that  the  legal  representatives  of  the  deceased  are  entitled  to  the
compensation as mentioned under the various heads in the table  as  provided
above in this judgment even though certain  claims  were  not  preferred  by
them as we are of the view that they are legally and  legitimately  entitled
for the said claims.  Accordingly we award the compensation, more than  what
was claimed by them as it is the statutory duty  of  the  Tribunal  and  the
appellate court to award just  and  reasonable  compensation  to  the  legal
representatives of the deceased to mitigate  their  hardship  and  agony  as
held by this Court in a catena of cases.
Therefore, this Court  has  awarded
just and reasonable compensation in favour of the appellants as  they  filed
application claiming  compensation  under  Section  166  of  the  M.V.  Act.
Keeping in view the aforesaid relevant facts and legal  evidence  on  record
and in the absence of  rebuttal  evidence  adduced  by  the  respondent,  we
determine just and reasonable compensation by awarding a total  sum  of  Rs.
16,96,000/- with interest @ 7.5% from the date of filing the claim  petition
till the date payment is made to the appellants.


10.    Accordingly, the appeal is allowed on  the  above  said  terms.   The
respondent is directed to pay the enhanced compensation in this appeal  with
interest awarded, in favour of the appellants in the following  ratio.   75%
of the awarded amount shall be paid equally in favour of  appellant  Nos.  1
to 3 and the remaining 25% must be in the name of appellant Nos. 4 and 5  in
equal proportion with proportionate  interest.  Out  of  the  75%,  each  of
appellant Nos. 1 to 3 will  get  25%  and  further,  10%  of  the  share  of
appellant No.2 and 10% of the share of  appellant  No.3  must  be  deposited
with proportional interest payable to each one of them in  any  Nationalized
Bank of their choice and the rest 15% of each of their award  amounts,  with
proportionate interest to be paid to them.  The appellant Nos. 2 and  3  are
at liberty to move the Tribunal to release the money so deposited for  their
welfare and developmental purpose. The above said  direction  regarding  the
payment and deposit shall be made within six weeks by depositing it  in  the
Bank and disburse the amount by way of demand draft drawn  in  the  name  of
each one of them as directed above. There will be no order as to costs.



                                       …………………………………………………………J.       [G.S.
                                       SINGHVI]










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


New Delhi,                                                 October 3, 2013

ITEM NO.1A          COURT NO.13             SECTION IX
(For Judgment)

                   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(s). 8251 OF 2013
SANOBANU NAZIRBHAI MIRZA & ORS.        Appellant (s)
                       VERSUS
AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL TRANSPORT SERVICE  Respondent(s)
Date: 03/10/2013  This Appeal was called on for  pronouncement  of  Judgment
today.

For Appellant(s)
                       Mr. Haresh Raichura,Adv.
For Respondent(s)
                       Mr. H.S. Parihar,Adv.

  UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following
                      O R D E R
            Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. Gopala Gowda pronounced the  judgment  of
the Bench comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.S. Singhvi and His Lordship.
            Leave granted.
            The appeal is allowed with no order as to costs in terms of  the
signed reportable judgment.

      [ Neeta ]                      [ Usha Sharma]
     Sr. P.A.                       Court Master
(Signed Judgment is placed on the file)
-----------------------
[1]    1998 (2) GLH 670

[2]    (1994) 2 SCC 189

[3]    (1994) 2 SCC 176

[4]    2001 (2) GLR 1777

[5]    (2012) 6 SCC 421

[6]    2013 (6) SCALE 563

[7]    (2003) 2 SCC 274



-----------------------
-22-





No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.