Motor Vehicles Act – Insurer’s Liability – Policy in Name of Deceased Owner – Accident occurred after death of registered owner and before transfer of vehicle – Insurance policy renewed in name of deceased – Insurer contended absence of liability – Held: Once insurer accepts premium and policy stands renewed, insurer cannot avoid liability merely because policy was in name of deceased owner – Reliance placed on United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Santro Devi – Insurer estopped from denying liability [Paras 6–10].

Evidence – Plea Raised Without Proof – Insurer failed to adduce any evidence before Tribunal regarding invalidity of policy – Plea raised only at argument stage – Held: In absence of evidence, insurer cannot be absolved of liability [Paras 7–9].

Motor Accident Compensation – Protection of Victim’s Interest – Underlying principle of motor accident compensation is to protect interest of victims and dependents – Technical objections by insurer cannot defeat just claims of victims [Para 10].

Quantum of Compensation – Appellate Interference – Compensation of Rs.15,37,600/- with 7% interest awarded by Tribunal found on higher side – High Court reduced compensation to Rs.14,50,000/- with 6% interest from date of application – Modification made to meet ends of justice [Para 11].

Apportionment – Redistribution Among Claimants – Amount awarded to mother of deceased directed to be apportioned equally among surviving claimants (Respondent Nos.1 to 3) [Para 13].

Refund of Statutory Deposit – On deposit of modified compensation, statutory deposit with accrued interest to be refunded to insurer in accordance with law [Para 14].

Decision – Appeal partly allowed – Award modified as to quantum and rate of interest – Insurer held liable to satisfy award – MACA disposed of – Costs made easy – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 11–16].

Limitation – Condonation of Delay – Second Appeal – Delay of 1221 Days – Appellant sought condonation on the ground that he was residing in Dubai and was unaware of the judgment of the First Appellate Court – Affidavit silent as to the date of return to India – Appellant had earlier prosecuted first appeal from Dubai by engaging counsel – Held: Mere residence abroad without specific explanation does not constitute sufficient cause [Paras 5-7].

Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 5 – “Sufficient Cause” – Scope – Appellant pleaded ill-health as a reason for delay – No medical records or particulars of illness produced – No plea of hospitalization – Held: Bald and unsupported plea of ill-health cannot justify inordinate delay [Paras 6-7].

Delay After Obtaining Certified Copy – Conduct of Litigant – Even after receipt of certified copy of appellate judgment, appellant delayed filing second appeal by nearly one year – Lack of diligence and bona fides clearly established – Held: Negligence and inaction disentitle discretionary relief under Section 5 [Paras 6-7, 11].

Discretion of Court – Condonation of Delay – Principles – Law of limitation based on public policy – Courts cannot extend limitation on equitable grounds – Liberal approach cannot defeat statutory mandate – Held: Inordinate delay without satisfactory explanation cannot be condoned [Paras 8-11].

Decision:

Interlocutory Application No. 01 of 2018 dismissed – Delay of 1221 days not condoned – Second Appeal rejected – Interim orders, if any, stood vacated.

Criminal Law – Quashing – Commercial Transaction – Alleged Non-Payment of Dues – Petitioner sought quashing of proceeding under Sections 406/420 IPC arising out of business dealings relating to supply of poultry feed – Admitted long-standing commercial relationship since 2012 with regular payments – Dispute arose over alleged outstanding of Rs. 40 lakhs – Held: No averment of dishonest intention at inception – Essential ingredients of cheating and criminal breach of trust not made out – Dispute purely civil in nature – Continuation of criminal proceeding amounts to abuse of process – Proceedings quashed [Paras 18–20, 23, 28–30].

Cheating – Essential Ingredients – Dishonest Intention at Inception – Mere failure to pay outstanding amount or subsequent breach of promise does not constitute offence under Section 420 IPC unless fraudulent or dishonest intention exists at the inception of transaction – Complaint silent as to initial deception or inducement – Business continued for years with regular payments – No prima facie case under Section 420 IPC disclosed [Paras 18, 21–26].

Criminal Breach of Trust – Commercial Dealings – To attract Section 406 IPC, entrustment and dishonest misappropriation must be established – Purely contractual or monetary dispute arising from commercial transactions does not ipso facto constitute criminal breach of trust – Ledger dispute over dues recoverable, if any, gives rise to civil remedy [Paras 19, 26, 28].

Civil Dispute – Criminalisation of – Abuse of Process – Attempt to convert recovery of money arising from business transactions into criminal prosecution deprecated – Where allegations even if taken at face value constitute breach of contract, criminal prosecution not maintainable – Inherent power under Section 482 CrPC exercised to secure ends of justice [Paras 19, 27–30].

Decision: CRR 933 of 2017 allowed – CRAN applications disposed of – Proceedings in Arambagh P.S. Case No. 1066 of 2016 dated 11.11.2016 under Sections 406/420 IPC corresponding to G.R. No. 2090 of 2016 pending before the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Arambagh, Hooghly quashed insofar as the petitioner is concerned – Interim order vacated.

Motor Accident Claim – Minor Injured Claimant – Assessment of Notional Income – Minimum Wages of Skilled Worker – Tribunal failed to assess loss of earning capacity of 15-year-old student – High Court held that minor cannot be treated as non-earner – Income to be assessed on basis of minimum wages prevailing in Haryana – Monthly income fixed at Rs.5,500 – 40% addition towards future prospects – Multiplier of 18 applied – Loss of future earning recalculated on basis of 13% disability [Paras 9, 13-14, 23; ].

Permanent Disability – 13% Whole Body Disability – Functional Impact – Court reiterated that permanent disability has multi-dimensional consequences including loss of dignity, reduced mobility and long-term impairment – Compensation under loss of future earning capacity to be computed by applying multiplier method in terms of Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar and Erudhaya Priya [Paras 6, 16-17; ].

Future Prospects – Injured Minor – Addition of 40% – Tribunal erred in not adding future prospects – As per settled law including Pranay Sethi and Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel, future prospects must be granted even in case of minors – 40% addition applied to notional income [Paras 14; ].

Non-Pecuniary Damages – Pain and Suffering – Loss of Marriage Prospects – Loss of Amenities – Considering young age (15 years) and permanent disability, meagre award by Tribunal enhanced – Rs.3,00,000 granted for pain and suffering – Rs.3,00,000 granted for loss of marriage prospects – Rs.2,00,000 awarded for loss of amenities of life – Enhancement justified in view of KS Muralidhar and Rahul Ganpat Rao Sable [Paras 18, 21, 23; ].

Just Compensation – Welfare Legislation – Court emphasized that compensation must be fair, reasonable and adequate to restore victim to pre-accident position as far as money can – Award modified from Rs.1,20,000 to Rs.9,96,216 – Enhanced amount Rs.8,76,216 with interest @ 9% per annum from date of filing of claim petition [Paras 23-25; ].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Award dated 04.09.2009 modified – Total compensation enhanced to Rs.9,96,216 – Respondents directed to deposit enhanced amount with 9% interest within two months – Tribunal to disburse amount to claimant.

Railways Act – Untoward Incident – Accidental Fall from Train – Deceased allegedly fell from running train between Daya Basti and Shakur Basti – Journey ticket recovered during jamatalashi – Tribunal dismissed claim on conjectures regarding journey duration and nature of injuries – Held: Findings based on surmises – Recovery of valid ticket establishes prima facie bona fide travel – Burden shifts to Railways to rebut – Impugned order set aside [Paras 9–12, 17–18].

Bona Fide Passenger – Proof – Journey ticket bearing No. m-43449854 recovered from deceased – Recovery not disputed – Tribunal erred in presuming expiry of journey time based on scheduled train chart without evidence of actual train timings (TSR) – Reliance on scheduled timings unsustainable [Paras 9–10].

Commercial Circular No. 5/2016 – Validity of Ticket – For distance up to 199 km, journey to commence within three hours of issue or departure of first train, whichever later – No evidence that deceased travelled contrary to circular – Benefit of doubt to claimants [Paras 11–12].

Medical Evidence – Tribunal Drawing Own Conclusions – Tribunal inferred injuries indicated “hit by train” and not fall – Simultaneously noted absence of loco pilot report or contemporaneous record of run-over – Such self-contradictory reasoning unsustainable – Court held Tribunal erred in substituting medical opinion without expert basis [Paras 13–15].

Standard of Proof – Beneficial Legislation – Proceedings under Railways Act not akin to criminal trial – Hyper-technical approach impermissible – Once basic facts of travel and accidental fall established, burden shifts to Railways – None of the exceptions under proviso to Section 124-A attracted [Paras 16–17].

Delay in Discovery of Body – Not Conclusive – Mere delay in recovery of body in mid-section between stations does not negate travel or accidental fall – Cannot defeat statutory claim absent cogent rebuttal evidence [Paras 8, 12].

Appellate Interference – Tribunal’s Findings Based on Conjecture – High Court justified in setting aside dismissal where conclusions contrary to settled law laid down in Rina Devi and Leela Devi [Paras 17–18].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned judgment dated 22.05.2019 set aside – Matter remanded to Railway Claims Tribunal for awarding compensation in accordance with law – Compensation to be disbursed within two months – Copy of judgment directed to be sent to Tribunal.

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order V Rule 20 – Substituted Service – Prerequisites for invocation – Held: Substituted service is an exception to the normal mode of service. It can only be ordered if the Court, after applying its mind to the facts and circumstances, records a satisfaction based on material on record that the defendant is deliberately keeping out of the way for the purpose of avoiding service, or that the summons cannot be served in the ordinary manner. A mechanical order for publication without exhaustion of primary modes of service is legally unsustainable. [Paras 26, 27, 36]

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order V Rules 17 and 20 – Sequential compliance – Interplay between affixture and publication – Held: The provisions of Order V Rule 17 and Rule 20 must be read conjointly. Before resorting to substituted service under Rule 20, it is mandatory to follow the procedure prescribed under Rule 17 (service by affixture). Where there is no documentary evidence on record to prove that registered notices or process server summons were ever sent, refused, or that the defendant’s residence was identified for affixture, the Court cannot presume service to be sufficient merely on the basis of newspaper publication. [Paras 20, 28, 31]

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order XLI Rule 21 – Recalling ex-parte decree – Sufficient cause – Duty of the Appellate Court – The first appellate court allowed an appeal ex-parte after ordering substituted service despite the lack of evidence of service attempts by registered post or process server. The appellant moved to recall the judgment under Order XLI Rule 21. The lower appellate court rejected the recall, presuming knowledge based on the defendant's subsequent appearance. Held: Such reasoning is a figment of imagination and perverse. Knowledge of the appeal cannot be presumed from conduct if the mandatory provisions for service of summons are breached. The original suit having been dismissed on merits, the defendants were entitled to a fair opportunity to contest the appeal. Impugned order set aside. [Paras 40, 41, 42]

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order V Rule 21 – Service on defendant residing outside jurisdiction – Appellate Court situated in Ghaziabad while defendant resided in Delhi – Held: Under Order V Rule 21, the Court ought to have sent the summons to the competent Court in Delhi for effecting service. Failure to adopt this procedure while simultaneously allowing an application for publication indicates a lack of due diligence and procedural impropriety. [Paras 29, 32, 33]

Decision: Appeal allowed. The impugned order dated 23.05.2024 is set aside. The application under Order XLI Rule 21 CPC is allowed. The ex-parte judgment and decree dated 17.07.2019 in Civil Appeal No. 146 of 2011 is set aside, and the appeal is restored to its original number. The first appellate court is directed to decide the matter afresh on merits within four months. Parties directed to maintain status quo. [Paras 42-44]

Letters Patent Appeal – Scope of Interference – Single Judge declined to entertain writ on ground that disputed questions of title cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction – Directed appellant to approach appropriate forum – Held: No error in impugned order – Observations do not conclude title – Appellant not prejudiced [Paras 11, 22].

Co-operative Dispute – Possession of Flat – Appellant claimed ownership of Flat No. 702 based on purchase of Flat No. 701 allegedly admeasuring 1500 sq. ft. and subsequent division – Sale deed reflected ownership only of Flat No. 701 – No documentary evidence of lawful division or membership in respect of Flat No. 702 – Held: Appellant failed to establish any right, title or interest in Flat No. 702 [Paras 12, 13, 15].

Disputed Questions of Title – Writ Jurisdiction – Allegations of fraud, illegal dispossession and violation of natural justice raised – Cooperative Appellate Court held such issues cannot be adjudicated in interlocutory/review proceedings – Appropriate remedy lies before competent civil forum – Writ court rightly declined to examine disputed factual matrix [Paras 11, 12, 22].

Possession through Court Receiver – Cooperative Appellate Court directed society to hand over Flat No. 702 to Respondent No. 5, failing which Court Receiver to take possession – Appellant not party to earlier proceedings – However, appellant’s claim over Flat No. 702 found unsupported by documents – Held: Orders of Appellate Court based on society records showing flat vacant – No case made out for interference [Paras 12, 14, 23].

Conduct of Appellant – Abuse of Process – Court observed appellant failed to produce any authenticated document supporting alleged 1500 sq. ft. area or lawful bifurcation – Leave and license agreements viewed as attempt to create semblance of possession – Held: Appeal an attempt to defeat rights of bona fide allottee – No merit [Paras 17, 18, 21, 24].

Decision: Letters Patent Appeal dismissed – Impugned order dated 13.06.2011 upheld – Respondent No. 5 at liberty to take appropriate steps to secure possession in accordance with law – No order as to costs [Paras 24, Order].

Criminal Law - Quashing of Proceedings – Section 482 CrPC – Wrong Quotation of Penal Provisions – Petitioner, a Director of company, sought quashing contending offences under Sections 415, 420, 472, 477A, 378 and 379 IPC not attracted – Held: Mere misquoting of penal provisions by investigating agency does not warrant quashing – Trial Court empowered to frame appropriate charges based on materials on record – Petition dismissed [Paras 5-7].

Criminal Breach of Trust – Company Director – Allegation of Misappropriation of Company Assets – Prosecution alleged petitioner purchased goods in name of company, diverted them to wife’s shop, manipulated computer data, removed company records and retained company car – Court observed that materials prima facie disclose offences under Sections 406 and 409 IPC – Applicability of Sections 415 and 420 IPC to be examined at stage of charge – Proceedings cannot be scuttled at threshold [Paras 2, 5].

Forgery and Use of Forged Documents – Incorrect Mention of Sections 472 and 477A IPC – Allegations indicate possible offences under Sections 465 and 471 IPC – Held: If investigating agency wrongly invoked Sections 472 and 477A IPC, Magistrate can incorporate correct provisions while framing charges – No ground for quashment merely because specific sections may not strictly apply [Para 6].

Theft – Company Vehicle – Defence that Car Surrendered to Financier – Petitioner contended that offences under Sections 378 and 379 IPC not attracted as vehicle returned to financier due to loan arrears – Held: Such factual defence to be considered by Trial Court at stage of framing of charge – Inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC not to be invoked for premature evaluation of defence [Para 7].

Powers of Trial Court – Alteration of Charge – Court clarified that Magistrate may invoke powers under Section 216 CrPC (Section 239 BNSS, 2023) to alter or add charges if already framed – Observations in present order to be considered at stage of framing/alteration of charges [Final Order].

Decision: Criminal Miscellaneous Case dismissed – No ground to quash proceedings – Trial Court to consider proper penal provisions at stage of framing or alteration of charges.

Bail - Section 12 MCOCA - Arrest and Detention – Look-Out Circular – Commencement of Custody – Appellant detained at Amritsar Airport pursuant to LOC and handed over to Delhi Police – Held, arrest commences from moment liberty is restrained – Custody to be computed from time of airport detention – Subsequent plea of “release” not supported by contemporaneous record [Paras 8-10, 11].

Article 22(2) – Production within 24 Hours – Constitutional Mandate – Appellant not produced before nearest Magistrate within 24 hours of initial restraint of liberty – Only permissible exclusion is travel time to Magistrate – No case of enemy alien or preventive detention – Continued detention without Magistrate’s authority violative of Article 22(2) and Section 167(1) CrPC/187(1) BNSS – Custody vitiated [Paras 6-7, 11-12].

General Diary Entry – Evidentiary Value – GD entry showed handing over of appellant and belongings to Delhi team – No record of alleged release on 26.09.2025 or service of valid notice in presence of local police – Prosecution version of release doubtful in absence of supporting material [Paras 8-10].

Bail – Effect of Constitutional Violation – Where Court finds violation of Articles 21 and 22 in manner of arrest or continued detention, it is duty of Court to grant bail – Gravity of offence, though relevant, cannot cure illegality of detention [Paras 11-13].

Evasion of Investigation – Conduct of Accused – Appellant failed to join investigation despite notice and booked flight abroad – Conduct indicative of attempt to evade investigation – However, constitutional breach outweighs gravity for purpose of bail – Bail granted subject to stringent conditions [Paras 13-14].

Stringent Conditions – MCOCA Case – Bail subject to execution of bond of ₹2,00,000 with two sureties – Regular appearance before SHO – No contact with witnesses – Surrender of passport – Disclosure of identity and property details – Restriction on leaving country – Liberty to trial court to modify conditions [Paras 14-16].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Bail granted on stringent conditions due to violation of Article 22(2) – Pending applications disposed of.