Motor Accident Claim – Quantum of Compensation – Incorrect Deduction Towards Income – Enhancement Allowed – Tribunal had wrongly assessed monthly income of the deceased as Rs.2,875/- based on carry-home salary – Court held salary of Rs.3,209/- was proved and should have been considered as gross income – Held: Deduction for personal expenses should have been 1/4th instead of 1/3rd, considering number of dependents – Compensation recalculated accordingly [Paras 3, 6, 10].

Future Prospects – Deceased Below 40 Years – Addition of 40% to Income Justified – As per Pranay Sethi, deceased being aged 32 years entitled to 40% addition on income for future prospects – Tribunal had not applied this principle – Court corrected the error while recalculating compensation [Paras 3, 8, 10].

Conventional Heads – Funeral Expenses, Loss of Estate, and Consortium – Compensation Enhanced – Tribunal awarded insufficient amount under conventional heads – Court applied principles laid down in Pranay Sethi and Magma General Insurance Co. to award Rs.18,000/- each towards loss of estate and funeral expenses and Rs.2,88,000/- collectively for spousal, parental, and filial consortium – Total compensation enhanced accordingly [Paras 6, 8–9, 10].

Interest on Enhanced Compensation – Rate and Duration – Award Modified – Appellants held entitled to interest at 9% per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of filing of the claim petition till realisation – Following ratio of Dara Singh and R. Valli cases [Para 11].

Direction to Insurance Company – Compliance Ordered – Respondent No.3 (Insurance Company) directed to deposit enhanced compensation within two months and disburse it to appellants in accordance with the original apportionment – Insurance Company also directed to pay fee to its counsel as per prior order [Paras 12–13].
 

Motor Accident – Rash and Negligent Driving – Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim for non-examination of eyewitness – Accident proved through FIR, post-mortem report, and police investigation – Criminal acquittal of respondent No.1 not binding on Tribunal – Negligence proved on touchstone of preponderance of probabilities – Claimant entitled to compensation [Paras 9-17].

Standard of Proof – Proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act – Tribunal wrongly insisted on strict proof as required in criminal trial – Held: Strict rules of evidence do not apply in claim petitions – Tribunal is to decide claims on the basis of preponderance of probabilities and not proof beyond reasonable doubt – Judgment in Sunita vs Rajasthan State Transport Corporation followed [Paras 11-14].

Driving Licence – Validity of LMV Licence to Drive Tractor – Tribunal’s finding that respondent No.1 did not possess valid licence is contrary to law – As per Supreme Court in Bajaj Allianz vs Rambha Devi (2024 INSC 840), a driver holding LMV licence is competent to drive transport vehicles below 7500 kg including tractors – Issue No.3 answered against the Insurance Company [Paras 23-25].

Criminal Acquittal – Not Binding on Tribunal – Criminal acquittal of the driver by giving benefit of doubt does not ipso facto absolve him of civil liability under the Motor Vehicles Act – Tribunal ought to have independently appreciated evidence – Supreme Court’s ruling in N.K.V. Bros v. M. Karumai Ammal applied [Paras 14-15].

Compensation – Computation – Minimum wages considered as basis of income – Future prospects added @40% – Deduction of 50% towards personal expenses applied – Multiplier of 17 adopted considering age of deceased at 28 years – Compensation awarded under conventional heads following Pranay Sethi and Magma General Insurance Co. v. Nanu Ram [Paras 18-21].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Award dated 06.08.2005 set aside – Claimant entitled to total compensation of ₹3,55,320/- with interest @9% per annum from date of petition till realization – Insurance Company directed to deposit compensation within two months – Costs imposed for non-appearance of counsel also addressed [Paras 26-30].

Criminal Evidence Law - Electronic Evidence – Right to Cloned Copy – Natural Justice – Cloned Copy Directed to Be Provided - Petitioners challenged denial of a cloned copy of hard disk relied upon for prosecution evidence – Court held that denial would violate right to fair trial – Directed trial court to provide cloned copy at petitioners’ expense to ensure effective cross-examination and defence [Paras 20–28].

Recall of Witness – Section 311 CrPC – Not a Ground to Deny Evidence Access - Prosecution had recalled PW-7 under Section 311 CrPC to introduce digital evidence – Court held that recall cannot bypass obligation to provide access to digital material if used against accused [Paras 11–13, 22].

Section 207 CrPC – Post-Supply Inspection Rights Retained – Cloned Copy Still Justified - Even assuming documents were supplied during charge, Court held that accused retains right to request copies at later stages, especially if trial is prolonged or records misplaced – Supply of cloned copy not barred [Paras 21, 26].

Precedent – P. Gopal Krishnan v. State of Kerala Applied – Cloned Copy of Electronic Records Mandatory - Citing Supreme Court ruling, Court emphasized that hard disks are electronic records and must be cloned and provided unless privacy issues exist – No such concern in this case [Paras 23–24].

No Delay Attributable to Accused – Prosecution Caused Trial Protraction - Court noted it was the prosecution that delayed the trial through multiple recall applications – Accused not found to be abusing process or causing delay – Cloned copy necessary for fair cross-examination [Para 22].

Final Decision – Application Allowed – Cloned Copy Ordered – Cross-examination Deferred - Trial court directed to clone and provide hard disk copy through authorized IT experts – Cross-examination of PW-7 deferred until then to protect fair trial rights [Paras 27–30].

Family Law - Child Custody – Mutual Consent Divorce – Subsequent Custody Petition – Impermissible Under Guardians and Wards Act – Allowed Under Hindu Marriage Act Only - Custody of child was settled by consent in mutual divorce decree under Section 13(b), granting custody to mother – Father subsequently filed petition under Section 25 of Guardians and Wards Act – Held: Proper remedy lies under Section 26 of Hindu Marriage Act, not Section 25 of Guardians and Wards Act – Family Court's order rejecting Order VII Rule 11 application quashed – Petition under Guardians and Wards Act dismissed as not maintainable [Paras 1, 5, 20, 28].

Paramountcy of Child's Welfare – Custody Orders Not Final – Subject to Variation – Welfare Must Prevail - Custody arrangements, even by consent, are not absolute – Orders under matrimonial law are inherently temporary and can be varied under Section 26 HMA based on change in circumstances – Court emphasizes that welfare of child is paramount and custodial stability must not be lightly disturbed [Paras 13-15, 18, 22].

Jurisdiction – Guardians and Wards Act vs Hindu Marriage Act – Post-Divorce Custody Variation – Exclusive Remedy Under Section 26 HMA - After a decree of divorce under Section 13(b), custody claims must be revisited via Section 26 HMA – Section 25 of Guardians and Wards Act cannot override consent-based judicial orders – Petitions seeking change must specify new facts unknown at time of decree and demonstrate compelling change in circumstances [Paras 17, 21, 24-27].

Decision – Civil Revision Allowed – Family Court's Order Set Aside - Trial court erred in entertaining the custody application under wrong statute – Civil Revision Application allowed – CMA No. 105 of 2021 rejected as not maintainable under law [Paras 28-29].
 

Motor Accident Compensation – Enhancement of Income – Application of Minimum Wage Notification – Future Prospects and Deduction Adjusted – Compensation Enhanced - Tribunal treated the deceased, a building material shop owner, as a casual labourer due to absence of income proof and applied minimum wage of ₹6,000/- – Court held that minimum wage applicable at the time of the accident was ₹7,200/- as per government notifications – Deduction for personal expenses reduced to 1/4th as deceased left behind four dependents including an unborn child – Tribunal correctly applied multiplier of 18 – Future prospects added at 40% following Pranay Sethi – Total compensation enhanced to ₹18,12,960/- [Paras 6-7].

Unborn Child – Entitlement to Compensation – Included as Dependent - The deceased's widow was pregnant at the time of the accident – The male child born later was held entitled to be treated as a dependent and eligible for compensation under the MV Act – Court followed settled law that unborn children are also entitled to compensation if born alive [Para 6].

Conventional Heads – Omission Rectified – Consortium and Loss of Estate Compensation Awarded - Tribunal failed to award compensation for loss of estate and consortium – High Court awarded ₹1,44,000/- under loss of consortium (₹48,000 x 3 for widow, mother, and minor son) and ₹18,000/- each for funeral expenses and loss of estate – Computation of compensation realigned as per Sarla Verma, Pranay Sethi, and Magma General Insurance guidelines [Paras 6-7].

Final Award – Compensation Enhanced – Interest Modified - Total enhanced compensation fixed at ₹18,12,960/- with an additional ₹9,29,000/- payable to the appellants along with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of claim petition till realization – Appeals allowed and disposed [Paras 8-9].

Service Law – Departmental Proceedings based on Same Allegations as Criminal Trial – Proceedings vitiated – The petitioner, a bank employee, was earlier acquitted honourably in a criminal trial arising out of alleged issuance of fraudulent CRIS certificates – Later, departmental proceedings were initiated on identical facts with the same witnesses – Held: Departmental punishment unsustainable in view of acquittal and settled law that parallel departmental proceedings cannot be sustained on identical allegations when the accused has been honourably acquitted [Paras 1-5, 17-28].

Criminal Trial – Acquittal on Merits – Not a Case of Mere Benefit of Doubt – The Trial Court found prosecution witnesses unreliable, disbelieved the case of the bank, and recorded a finding that the petitioner was made a scapegoat – Department cannot re-litigate the matter through disciplinary proceedings – Findings of acquittal were substantive and not technical [Paras 11-14, 25].

Departmental Proceedings – Same Witnesses and Evidence as in Criminal Case – Departmental witnesses were the same as prosecution witnesses who had already been disbelieved in criminal trial – Proceedings hit by the principles laid down in G.M. Tank vs. State of Gujarat, (2006) 5 SCC 446 – Supreme Court ruling squarely applicable [Paras 19-23].

Judicial Review – Limited Scope – Court recognized that ordinarily judicial review in service matters is limited to illegality, perversity, or violation of natural justice – However, when departmental action is contrary to settled law and ignores acquittal on merits, intervention is justified – Reliance placed on G.M. Tank, Capt. Paul Anthony, and Ram Lal cases [Paras 25-29].

Decision – Petition Allowed – Impugned orders dated 19.12.2002 and 04.08.2003 quashed – Petitioner entitled to all consequential service and pensionary benefits – Bank directed to implement the order within 3 months and pay arrears within a further period of 2 months, failing which 6% interest shall apply [Para 30].

Civil Law - Execution Proceedings – Power of Execution Court – Whether It Can Modify the Decree – Petitioners obtained a decree for possession of land marked with letters ‘E’, ‘F’, ‘G’ & ‘H’ in site plan Ex. PW-4/9—Respondents raised objections regarding measurement, claiming possession of 400 sq. yards instead of 305 sq. yards—The executing court modified the decree by directing proportional apportionment of land—Held: An execution court cannot travel beyond the decree or modify it—Decree must be executed as per site plan boundaries—Impugned order modifying the decree set aside [Paras 6-12].

Res Judicata – Objections on Measurement Previously Decided – Whether Respondents Could Raise It Again – Respondents’ objections on measurement were already dismissed in trial court’s order dated 23.10.2018—Held: Raising the same objections again in execution proceedings constitutes an abuse of process—Once measurement was determined in trial, it cannot be re-agitated—Execution court erred in reconsidering the same issue [Paras 8-9].

Order 7 Rule 3 CPC – Identification of Property in Suit – Sufficiency of Site Plan – Petitioners described property in suit with boundaries ‘E’, ‘F’, ‘G’ & ‘H’ as shown in red in site plan Ex. PW-4/9—Respondents neither submitted an alternative site plan nor rebutted this identification—Held: Site plan forming part of decree sufficiently identifies the property—Executing court cannot re-measure or apportion land based on subsequent claims [Paras 10-11].

Final Decision – Writ petition allowed – Impugned order dated 25.04.2019 set aside—Executing court directed to enforce possession strictly in terms of site plan Ex. PW-4/9—No orders as to costs [Paras 12-13].

Criminal Law - Default Bail – Stringent Conditions – Violation of Fundamental Rights – Petitioner was granted default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC due to the prosecution’s failure to file a charge sheet within 60 days – However, bail conditions included an excessive surety bond of ₹1.10 crore and a bank guarantee of ₹55 lakh – Petitioner challenged these conditions as violative of his fundamental rights under Article 21 – Held: Imposing stringent financial conditions on default bail is impermissible and renders bail illusory – Bail conditions modified to ₹50,000 with one surety in the like amount [Paras 6-8, 22-23].

Delay in Trial – Violation of Right to Liberty – Petitioner remained in custody for over 4 years despite a maximum punishment of 5 years under Section 132 of the CGST Act – Charges had not been framed, and the trial had not commenced – Held: Prolonged incarceration without trial amounts to a gross violation of the right to a speedy trial – Courts must ensure that undertrial prisoners are not indefinitely detained due to procedural delays [Paras 6, 9].

Application of Section 479 BNSS – Retrospective Effect – Court noted that Section 479 of BNSS, which provides for the release of undertrial prisoners who have served a certain proportion of their maximum sentence, applies retrospectively – Supreme Court in In Re Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons directed immediate implementation of this provision – Held: Petitioner had already undergone more than one-third of his maximum sentence and was entitled to release under Section 479 BNSS [Paras 10-11].

Judicial Precedents on Bail Conditions – Reference to Moti Ram v. State of M.P. and Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar – Court reiterated that bail conditions must be reasonable and cannot be used to impose financial constraints that effectively result in continued detention – Held: Courts must ensure that monetary conditions do not create a class divide in access to bail [Paras 12-16].

Failure of District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) – Non-Compliance with Bail Reforms – Supreme Court in In Re Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail directed DLSAs to assist undertrial prisoners unable to fulfill bail conditions – Court found that DLSA failed to take any steps to secure the petitioner’s release – Ordered matter to be placed before the Chief Justice for appropriate action to ensure compliance with Supreme Court directives [Paras 7-8, 25].

Final Decision – Petition allowed – Bail conditions modified – Petitioner released on bail upon furnishing a bond of ₹50,000 with one surety in the like amount – Family Court directed to expedite the trial – Matter referred to Chief Justice to ensure compliance with bail-related Supreme Court directions [Paras 23-25].
 

Income Tax Law - Bogus Purchases – Determination of Profit Rate – Section 69C of Income Tax Act – The Revenue challenged the Tribunal's decision to restrict disallowance to 12.5% of alleged bogus purchases instead of confirming the full disallowance – The Tribunal relied on past precedents allowing only a portion of the purchases to be disallowed – Held: If an assessee fails to prove the genuineness of purchases, full disallowance should be made under Section 69C—Tribunal erred in restricting disallowance—Full disallowance for purchases from M/s Neptune Trading Co. and Hari Om Traders reinstated [Paras 24-27].

Burden of Proof – Assessee’s Failure to Substantiate Purchases – The assessee failed to furnish bank statements of M/s Neptune Trading Co. and Hari Om Traders—Held: Non-furnishing of bank statements and absence of withdrawal details prevent verification—Tribunal’s findings set aside for these transactions—Disallowance confirmed in full [Paras 17-19].

Genuine vs. Non-Genuine Transactions – Revenue’s Independent Verification – For other suppliers, the Revenue independently verified bank statements and found no cash withdrawals—Held: In absence of evidence to the contrary, purchases from these suppliers considered genuine—No disallowance warranted for these transactions [Paras 14-16].

Precedents – Tribunal’s Reliance on Profit Rate Estimation – Revenue contended that Tribunal ignored binding precedents requiring full disallowance of unverified purchases—Held: Approach of estimating profit percentage contradicts settled law in N.K. Proteins Ltd. vs. DCIT—Full addition must be made where purchases remain unproven [Paras 20-23].

Final Decision – Revenue’s appeal partly allowed – Tribunal’s decision upheld for genuine purchases, but reversed for transactions with M/s Neptune Trading Co. and Hari Om Traders—Full disallowance of Rs. 1,00,10,773 confirmed [Paras 27-28].