Motor Vehicles Act - Entitlement to Compensation - Sections 140, 160, 166(1)(c) - Legal representatives' right to claim compensation under Section 166(1)(c) not dependent on proving financial dependency - Tribunal's dismissal of nephews' claim petition on grounds of non-dependency overturned - Held, legal representatives, including those not financially dependent, are entitled to compensation, but must prove the extent of entitlement. [Paras 9, 10, 17, 19, 20]

Dependency and Compensation - Legal Representatives - The definition of 'legal representative' under Section 2(11) of the CPC includes a broader category beyond immediate dependents - Legal representatives entitled to compensation even without proving financial dependency, but compensation limited to statutory amount under Section 140 in absence of dependency - Nephews of the deceased entitled to Rs. 50,000. [Paras 10, 17, 19, 20, 21]

Court's Reasoning - Right to Apply vs. Entitlement - Distinction between the right to apply for compensation and entitlement to compensation - Legal representatives can file a claim, but compensation for loss of dependency requires proof of financial contribution - Supreme Court precedents support awarding statutory compensation in absence of dependency. [Paras 13, 19, 20]

Decision:

The appeal is partly allowed. The claimants, being nephews of the deceased, are entitled to compensation of Rs. 50,000 under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, despite not proving financial dependency. The dismissal of their claim petition by the Tribunal is modified accordingly.

Stamp Duty – Assessment of Market Value – Petitioner challenged the orders directing him to pay deficient stamp duty and registration fee – Contention that property sale was complete in 2005 and should not be assessed at 2013 market rates – High Court held Collector’s order to be mechanical and without proper enquiry – Appeal dismissed without reasoning – Orders set aside [Paras 1-14].

Procedure under Section 47-A of Indian Stamp Act – Statutory obligation for independent enquiry – Collector's failure to determine true value of property as required – Appellate Authority's failure to provide reasoning for upholding Collector’s order – High Court emphasized need for reasoned decisions by authorities [Paras 7-13].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Held – Orders by Collector and Commissioner set aside – High Court mandated proper assessment of stamp duty in accordance with prescribed procedures and consideration of factual context of property sale and possession [Para 14-15].

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 166 - Notional Income of Deceased Housewife - Calculation of notional income of a deceased housewife in motor accident claims - Held - The deceased, aged 22 years with a young child, had her notional income assessed at Rs. 8000 per month. No deductions for self-expenses were applied, as per legal precedents, recognizing the multifarious roles of a housewife. The court followed the principles laid down in relevant case laws, affirming that the notional income for a housewife should not be reduced for personal expenses​​. [Para 9]

Compensation for Conventional Heads - Funeral Expenses, Loss of Estate, and Consortium - Held - The amounts awarded under the conventional heads were revisited and aligned with the Supreme Court’s guidelines in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others, AIR 2017 SC 5157. The claimants were entitled to Rs. 15,000 each for funeral expenses and loss of estate, and Rs. 40,000 for loss of consortium to the spouse​​. [Para 10]

Interest on Compensation - Non-Permissibility of Retrospective Higher Interest Rates - Held - The court ruled that imposing a condition of higher interest rates retrospectively in case of delayed payment was not permissible under Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The claimants were entitled to the entire amount (including enhanced amount) along with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition until realization​​. [Para 15-16]

Decision - Enhancement of Compensation and Interest Rate Adjustment - The award dated 02.05.2017 was modified, enhancing the compensation from Rs. 12,05,000 to Rs. 17,98,000. The interest rate was set at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition until the realization of the amount​​. [Para 13, 16]

Election Law - Disqualification for Non-Submission of Election Expenses - Sections 10A and 11 of Representation of the People Act, 1951 - Petitioner disqualified for not submitting election expenses for 2017 Legislative Assembly elections within the stipulated period - Petitioner claims submission of accounts delayed due to unavoidable circumstances - Held, Election Commission required to record reasons for disqualification decisions to comply with principles of natural justice - Non-speaking orders affecting civil rights can be challenged under Article 226 - Petition allowed, disqualification order set aside. [Paras 1, 25, 27]

Procedural Requirements - Compliance with Statutory Provisions - Rules 86, 87, 88, 89 of Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 - Detailed account of election expenses, including vouchers, must be lodged within 30 days from the result declaration - Election Commission's action criticized for not considering submitted accounts and for arbitrary disqualification - Proper communication and scrutiny of accounts essential before passing disqualification orders - Petitioner's accounts found in order upon scrutiny by District Election Officer. [Paras 15, 16, 24]

Court's Reasoning - Natural Justice and Right to Fair Hearing - Emphasis on recording reasons for administrative decisions impacting civil rights - Non-compliance with procedural fairness and lack of reasoned orders leads to arbitrariness - Judicial review ensures transparency and accountability in decisions affecting electoral rights - Petitioner's late submission justified, accounts accepted by competent authority, disqualification without application of mind considered unlawful. [Paras 17, 22, 23, 25]

Decision:

The writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 30.04.2019 and 07.06.2018 disqualifying the petitioner from contesting elections are set aside. The petitioner’s nomination paper for the 2019 Parliamentary Elections should be accepted, provided it meets other required criteria.

Family Law - Divorce and Maintenance - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Sections 13(1)(i-a), 24 - Appeal against decree of divorce granted to the wife on grounds of cruelty - Husband’s failure to pay maintenance and arrears as ordered by trial court disentitles him to relief - Courts upheld the principle that one cannot benefit from their own wrong - Appeal dismissed due to non-compliance with maintenance order. [Paras 7, 8, 9, 10]

Procedural Law - Striking Off Defense - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order IX Rule 13 - Appellant's defense struck off for non-payment of maintenance - Failure to challenge the order or pay maintenance reflected lack of seriousness in defending divorce proceedings - Appellate court found no error in trial court’s decree given appellant’s conduct. [Para 7]

Court's Reasoning - Equity and Conduct - Litigant must come with clean hands and comply with court orders to seek equitable relief - Appellant’s continued non-compliance and failure to contest maintenance order substantively weighed against him - Supreme Court precedent in Hirachand Srinivas Managaonkar v. Sunanda applied to bar relief for appellant's failure to pay maintenance. [Paras 8, 9, 10]

Decision:

The appeal is dismissed. The trial court's judgment and decree granting divorce on grounds of cruelty are upheld. The appellant-husband, having failed to pay the ordered maintenance, is not entitled to any relief in the appeal. The appellant's conduct, including non-payment and non-challenge of maintenance orders, bars him from contesting the divorce decree.

Criminal Law - Probation of Offenders - Sections 360 and 361 Cr.P.C. - Conditions for Release on Probation - Petitioners convicted under Section 292 IPC and Sections 63 and 68-A of the Copyright Act for preparing and selling obscene video compact discs - Trial Court and Appellate Court failed to consider release on probation despite compliance with conditions under Section 360 Cr.P.C. - Offenders without previous convictions eligible for probation based on age, character, and circumstances - Conviction upheld, substantive sentence of imprisonment set aside - Petitioners released on probation for one year. [Paras 25, 26, 27]

Probation of Offenders - Consideration by Courts - Mandate under Sections 360 and 361 Cr.P.C. - Courts must consider age, character, antecedents of offender, and offense circumstances - Failure to consider probation amounts to oversight of mandatory provisions - Petitioners to be released on probation with conditions of good behavior and periodic reporting. [Paras 25, 26]

Court’s Reasoning - Legal Precedents - Supreme Court and High Court precedents mandate considering probation for eligible offenders - Reference to Chandreshwar Sharma v. State of Bihar (2000) 9 SCC 245, highlighting mandatory nature of considering probation and recording reasons if denied - Similar view taken in Akhtar v. State of Haryana 2013(8) RCR (Criminal) 2992 - Petitioners' prolonged trial and lack of previous convictions considered. [Paras 22, 23, 24]

Decision:

The conviction of the petitioners is upheld. However, the substantive sentence of imprisonment is set aside. The petitioners are ordered to be released on probation for one year, subject to executing bonds to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bathinda, undertaking to maintain peace and good behavior for the said period and to appear and receive the sentence as and when called upon to do so in case of any bond condition violations.

Family Law - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 13-B - Mutual Divorce - Dismissal for Non-Prosecution - Appeal and Condonation of Delay - Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act does not permit an appeal against an order dismissing a petition for non-prosecution under Order IX Rule 8 of the CPC - Appellant must seek remedy through Order IX Rule 9 CPC for setting aside the dismissal, not through an appeal under Section 28 - Appeal dismissed as not maintainable. [Paras 7, 8, 14]

Civil Procedure - Appeal vs. Application for Setting Aside Dismissal - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order IX Rule 8 and 9 - Orders dismissing a suit for non-prosecution (Order IX Rule 8) can be contested by applying to set aside the dismissal (Order IX Rule 9) - Appeals under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act only lie against decrees or specific orders, not orders of dismissal for non-prosecution - Appellant directed to seek remedy under Order IX Rule 9 CPC. [Paras 8, 10, 15]

Limitation and Condonation - Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 5, Article 122 - Application for setting aside dismissal under Order IX Rule 9 must be filed within one month - Delayed appeals or applications must show sufficient cause for condonation - In the present case, the appellant did not follow proper procedure and delayed filing the application - Proper recourse is to file an application under Order IX Rule 9 CPC with a request for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. [Paras 13, 14]

Decision:

The appeal is dismissed as not maintainable. The order dismissing the mutual divorce petition for non-prosecution cannot be challenged under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The appellant is advised to file an appropriate application under Order IX Rule 9 of the CPC, along with an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, before the trial court.

Service Law - Interest on Delayed Gratuity - Rule 2.2 (c)(1), Rule 6.16 AA(9) of Punjab Civil Services Rules, 1970 - Employee entitled to death-cum-retirement gratuity upon the conclusion of departmental or judicial proceedings - Gratuity payable from the date of the final order concluding proceedings - Respondent entitled to interest from the date of acquittal till the actual disbursement of gratuity. [Paras 7, 9]

Gratuity Payment - Proceedings Impact on Gratuity - Rule 2.2 (c)(1) specifies entitlement to gratuity on the conclusion of proceedings - Rule 6.16 AA(9) applies to routine cases of gratuity entitlement and prescribes a three-month period for payment - In cases involving proceedings, gratuity falls due on the conclusion of proceedings as per Rule 2.2 (c)(1). [Paras 7, 8]

Court’s Analysis - Applicability of Rules and Precedents - Respondent acquitted on 17.11.2014, thus entitled to gratuity from this date - Interest on delayed gratuity payment applicable from the date of acquittal till actual payment - Lower courts' modification of interest period upheld, aligned with the rules and precedents. [Paras 8, 9, 10, 11]

Decision: The appeal is partly allowed. The respondent is entitled to interest at 9% per annum from the date of his acquittal (17.11.2014) till the date of actual disbursement of the gratuity amount. The interest amount difference is to be calculated and released to the respondent within one month.

Service Law - Extension in Service - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Extension not a matter of right - The petitioner's post as Work Mistry declared surplus - Government's 2012 instructions restrict extension where no work exists - The government rightly denied the extension to avoid paying employees without assigning work - Petition dismissed. [Paras 6, 8, 9]

Policy on Extension - Government's Authority - The Punjab government's instructions dated 26.11.2012 clarify that extensions are not granted where no work exists or where the service cadre is diminishing - Petitioner sought extension based on rules amended on 08.10.2012, but instructions on 26.11.2012 supersede this, focusing on operational need and budget efficiency. [Paras 6, 7, 8]

Court's Reasoning - Validity of Government’s Decision - The post of Work Mistry already declared surplus - Government's decision in line with policy to avoid unnecessary financial burden - Extension denied due to lack of work aligns with established rules and conditions - The court found no grounds to challenge the decision. [Paras 8, 9]

Decision:

The writ petition is dismissed. The government’s order dated 29.01.2019, denying the petitioner’s request for an extension in service, is upheld as it conforms with the government's policy on managing surplus posts and avoiding non-essential expenses.