Compensation – Death Due to Negligence – Maintainability Under Article 226 – The petitioners sought compensation for the death of their minor son caused by the alleged negligence of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) in maintaining its premises – Held: The High Court can entertain writ petitions under Article 226 for compensation in cases of violation of fundamental rights, including Article 21, where the State's negligence is evident – The Court found sufficient evidence of negligence by MCD in failing to maintain the premises, leading to the death – The writ petition is maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution [Paras 15-18].

Res Ipsa Loquitur – Application in Public Law Remedy – The Court applied the maxim 'Res Ipsa Loquitur,' presuming negligence on the part of MCD – It was established that the falling of a slab from the MCD-owned premises caused the death, indicating clear negligence in maintaining a safe environment for the public – Held: The principle allows for the presumption of negligence based on the circumstances surrounding the case, justifying the awarding of compensation [Paras 19-21].

Quantum of Compensation – Calculation – The petitioners sought compensation of Rs. 20,00,000 – The Court applied principles from prior judgments, considering factors such as the age of the deceased, potential future prospects, and minimum wage rates – The Court awarded Rs. 10,00,000 along with simple interest at 6% per annum from the date of death until realization – The compensation was computed based on loss of dependency and pecuniary losses, with the amount being adjusted for inflation [Paras 22-34].

Decision – Compensation Awarded – The Court directed the Municipal Corporation of Delhi to pay Rs. 10,00,000 as compensation with interest at 6% per annum from the date of death – In case of non-compliance, the petitioners would be entitled to an additional simple interest at the rate of 10% per annum – The writ petition was disposed of with these directions [Paras 34-35].

Motor Vehicle Accident – Compensation – Negligence Not Established – The Insurance Company challenged the Tribunal’s findings of negligence and liability on the grounds that the deceased driver of the motorcycle had consumed alcohol at the time of the accident – Held: Merely detecting alcohol in the stomach during the post-mortem is insufficient to prove intoxication or negligence – No other evidence was presented to establish that the driver was under the influence of alcohol or driving negligently at the time of the accident – Tribunal’s decision upheld regarding the liability of the Insurance Company [Paras 22-23, 30].

Insurance Policy Conditions – Occupant of Tractor Not Covered – The claim regarding the injury suffered by the respondent traveling on the tractor-trolley, which was insured under a "Farmer's Package Policy," was challenged on the grounds that the insurance did not cover the occupant as no premium was charged for such coverage – Held: The insurance was specific to agricultural use, and the policy covered only the driver – Occupant not covered under the policy – Insurance Company’s liability exonerated [Paras 24-26, 31].

Policy Violation – Tractor Used for Agricultural Purpose – The Insurance Company argued that the tractor was not being used for agricultural purposes at the time of the accident – Held: The Tribunal found that the tractor was being used to carry bricks for constructing a farm wall, which falls under agricultural purposes – Insurance Company liable for claims arising from the tractor’s use [Paras 26, 30].

Contributory Negligence – Multiple Riders on Motorcycle – The argument that having four persons on a motorcycle contributed to the accident was dismissed, as there was no evidence connecting the number of riders to the cause of the accident – Motorcycle collided with the tractor due to the latter’s negligence [Paras 28-29].

Interest on Compensation – Higher Rate as Penalty – The higher interest rate imposed by the Tribunal in case of delayed payment by the Insurance Company was found to be inconsistent with established legal principles – Interest adjusted to the standard rate of 6% p.a. [Para 32].

Family Law – Divorce by Mutual Consent (Mubara'at) – Appeal allowed – Appellant sought declaration of her divorce by mutual consent (Mubara'at) under Muslim Personal Law – The marriage was solemnized in 1984, with mutual separation occurring in 1990 – The couple mutually agreed to divorce in 1999 and executed a notarized “Talaqnama Tehreer” in 2000 – Family Court dismissed the suit for non-submission of original Talaqnama and delayed filing – Held: The delay in filing the suit was not a valid ground for dismissal as no limitation period applies to matrimonial status declarations under the Family Courts Act, 1984 – Suit decreed, and parties’ matrimonial status declared as divorced [Paras 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 30].

Limitation Act – Applicability to Divorce Cases – The Family Courts Act, 1984 does not prescribe any limitation period for suits declaring matrimonial status – The Family Court erroneously applied the Limitation Act – Section 29(3) of the Limitation Act exempts matrimonial cases from limitation restrictions – Delay in filing the suit was not a valid reason for dismissal, especially when the fact of divorce was undisputed, and the cause of action was recurring – Held: Family Court’s finding on delay was legally unsustainable, and the suit was filed within a reasonable time [Paras 19, 22, 23, 24, 25, 30].

Evidence – Admissibility of “Talaqnama” – Original Talaqnama submitted as additional evidence before the High Court – Family Court’s insistence on the original document was unwarranted as the fact of divorce was admitted and undisputed by the respondent – Under Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act, facts admitted need not be proven – Held: Family Court’s rejection of the suit on technical grounds of non-submission of original Talaqnama was erroneous [Paras 9, 20, 21, 23].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Family Court’s judgment set aside – Divorce by mutual consent (Mubara'at) confirmed – Matrimonial status declared as divorced – No costs imposed on either party – Original Talaqnama to be returned to the appellant [Paras 30, Order].

Criminal Law – Conviction under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC – Appellants convicted for dowry death and cruelty towards the deceased (Paramjit Kaur) – Trial court sentenced them to 7 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 304-B IPC and 1 year under Section 498-A IPC – Appellants challenged the conviction, arguing that the dying declaration was unreliable and there was no evidence of cruelty or demand for dowry – Held: The prosecution proved that the deceased died due to poisoning within 7 years of marriage, and there was credible evidence of harassment and demand for dowry – Conviction upheld [Paras 1-32].

Dying Declaration – Reliability – The deceased, Paramjit Kaur, made a dying declaration implicating her husband (Mohinder Singh), father-in-law (Amrik Singh), and other relatives for harassment and dowry demands – The appellants argued that the dying declaration lacked a doctor’s fitness certificate – Held: The declaration, recorded by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, was found credible and supported by other evidence, including witness testimonies and medical reports – The absence of a doctor's certificate did not invalidate the declaration [Paras 8-10, 30].

Presumption under Section 113-B of Indian Evidence Act – Dowry Death – The deceased died within 7 years of marriage and was subjected to harassment related to dowry – The court applied the presumption under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, shifting the burden of proof onto the accused – The appellants failed to rebut this presumption, and the prosecution’s evidence supported the conviction for dowry death under Section 304-B IPC [Paras 11-12, 26-31].

Medical Evidence – Cause of Death – The post-mortem and chemical analysis confirmed that the deceased died of poisoning by aluminium phosphide – The medical evidence corroborated the prosecution's case that the death was unnatural and related to dowry demands – No discrepancies in the medical testimony were found [Paras 19-21, 29].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC upheld – Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of [Paras 32-33].

Murder Case – Conviction under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC – Discrepancies in FIR and Witness Statements – Conviction Upheld - The appellants were convicted for murder based on the testimony of eyewitnesses and evidence linking the blood-stained weapons recovered from the appellants to the deceased. The defense argued discrepancies in the timing of the FIR, contradictions in the accident register, and doubts over the presence of eyewitnesses. Held: The conviction was upheld, as the prosecution established the charges beyond reasonable doubt, and the discrepancies were deemed minor and insignificant [Paras 12-13, 19].

Credibility of Injured Witnesses – High Reliability – Duty to Discredit through Concrete Evidence – The appellants contended that the injured witnesses were unreliable, particularly regarding their failure to help the deceased and the alleged contradictions in their testimony. Held: Injured witnesses are generally considered highly reliable, and the defense failed to provide concrete evidence to discredit their testimony. Minor inconsistencies did not affect the core of the prosecution's case [Paras 15, 19].

Discovery of Weapons – Link with the Crime – Matching Blood Groups – The appellants argued that the recovery of weapons was unreliable due to the presence of blood of different groups on the knives. Held: The prosecution proved the connection between the recovered weapons and the crime, as the blood found on the knives matched the deceased's blood group. The presence of an additional blood group was consistent with the injuries sustained by the witnesses [Paras 16-17].

Delay in FIR Filing – No Impact on Prosecution's Case – The defense highlighted a delay of 3 hours in the registration of the FIR and discrepancies in the accident register, where the injuries were allegedly caused by "unknown persons." Held: The FIR was registered promptly and reached the court prior to the preparation of the accident register, rendering the discrepancy in the register irrelevant [Paras 12-13].

Minor Contradictions in Witness Statements – No Ground for Acquittal – The appellants argued that minor contradictions in witness statements about the timing and sequence of events should lead to their acquittal. Held: Minor contradictions did not affect the core issue of the case. The testimony of multiple eyewitnesses was consistent and corroborated by forensic evidence [Paras 14-15].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – The court upheld the conviction and sentences passed by the Trial Court in SC No. 10 of 2016. Both appellants were sentenced to life imprisonment and fines under Sections 302 r/w 34, 341, and 323 of the IPC [Paras 20-21].

Accident Claim - Just Compensation – Determining Compensation for Minor Victims – Pecuniary and Non-Pecuniary Losses – The Court addressed the criteria for determining compensation for parents of minor victims, incorporating inflation-adjusted notional income with future prospects and applying multipliers to reflect financial dependency and emotional loss – The Court mandated that compensations include pecuniary loss calculations and significant non-pecuniary awards to acknowledge parental grief and future dependency [Paras 7, 10-11, 45-47].

Legal and Moral Dependency on Minors – Future Financial Dependency and Societal Norms – Recognizing the unique cultural and statutory expectations in India, the Court observed that parental dependency on children extends beyond immediate financial support, meriting compensation for future dependency as a moral and legal right of parents under relevant statutes, including the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 – Held: Parents are entitled to compensation reflecting cultural norms of lifelong dependency on children [Paras 22-27, 33-34].

Statutory and Judicial Remedies for Minors' Death Compensation – Uniformity and Practical Implementation – Adopting two methodologies for calculating compensation—the inflation-adjusted notional income and the lump-sum method for railway accident compensation—the Court established an averaging approach to ensure fairness and consistency in awards for minor deaths, with inflation adjustments annually [Paras 69-73, 99-102].

Medical and Financial Safeguards – Investment and Insurance Mandate for Parents of Deceased Minors – The Court mandated that awarded compensation be invested in a cumulative fixed deposit, accessible upon parents reaching 60 years, with provisions for early withdrawal under certain circumstances – Further directed insurers to issue a minimum health insurance policy of Rs. 10 lakhs for parents, effective from the age of 60, covering potential medical needs in recognition of the dependency on minor children for long-term care [Paras 115-120].

Decision: Appeals allowed in part; enhanced compensation awarded as per methodology outlined with directives for fixed deposit investments and health insurance for parents, reaffirming financial security and societal care standards.
 

Limitation Law – Application for Condonation of Delay – Appeal against Ex-parte Decree – Petitioners sought condonation of a 1050-day delay in filing an appeal against an ex-parte decree – The First Appellate Court dismissed the application for condonation of delay, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal – Held: Petitioners failed to provide sufficient cause for the delay – Law of limitation must be applied strictly, and mere negligence or inaction cannot justify condonation of such a long delay – Revision dismissed, and the decision of the First Appellate Court upheld [Paras 20-24].

Ex-parte Decree – Remedies under CPC – Petitioners' application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC to set aside the ex-parte decree had already been dismissed by the Trial Court – Petitioners did not file an appeal against that dismissal, and the order attained finality – Despite this, petitioners were within their rights to file a regular appeal under Section 96(2) CPC – However, this appeal was barred by limitation due to inordinate delay – Held: Dismissal of the appeal on the ground of limitation upheld [Paras 8-11].

Service of Summons – Non-Service Allegations – Petitioners argued that they were not served with summons after the conversion of the suit from a summary suit to a regular suit – The record showed that summons were served through registered post and publication – Petitioners were aware of the suit proceedings as evidenced by their reference to the suit in criminal proceedings – Held: The contention of non-service of summons was rejected [Paras 14-16].

Sufficient Cause – Legal Interpretation – Petitioners cited personal hardships and medical emergencies as reasons for the delay in filing the appeal – However, the Court held that such reasons did not constitute "sufficient cause" under the law, especially given the long period of inaction – Reliance was placed on the legal principles that require vigilant action by parties seeking relief – Held: No sufficient cause shown for condonation of delay [Paras 22-24].

Decision: The revision petition is dismissed – The order of the First Appellate Court dismissing the application for condonation of delay is upheld – Petitioners failed to justify the 1050-day delay in filing the appeal [Paras 24].

NDPS Act – Bail Application – Commercial Quantity of Narcotic Substance – Section 37 Rigors Considered – The petitioner sought bail in connection with the recovery of a commercial quantity of Ganja. While Section 37 of the NDPS Act imposes stringent conditions for bail, the court held that these conditions must be balanced against the petitioner’s right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. Despite the serious charges, the petitioner’s prolonged incarceration (since 03.04.2021) and the absence of strong evidence linking the petitioner to the crime, apart from a voluntary statement under Section 67 NDPS, justified granting bail [Paras 8-10].

Speedy Trial – Prolonged Incarceration – Applicability of Section 436A Cr.P.C – The court noted that the petitioner had been in custody for more than three years, and only three out of six charge-sheeted witnesses had been examined, with no likelihood of the trial concluding in the near future. Referring to the Supreme Court’s rulings in Mohd Muslim @ Hussain vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI, the court emphasized the need for balancing the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act with the fundamental right to a speedy trial [Paras 5-9].

Non-Admissibility of Section 67 Statements – Tofan Singh Case Applied – The prosecution relied on the petitioner’s voluntary statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. The court held that, as per the Supreme Court's decision in Tofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu, statements recorded under Section 67 are not admissible in criminal trials for establishing guilt. The absence of other incriminating evidence, such as call detail records or financial transactions, further weakened the prosecution's case [Para 8].

Decision: The petitioner, incarcerated since 03.04.2021, is granted bail on parity with co-accused Ravi Ranjan and considering the prolonged trial. The petitioner is to be released on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties, subject to conditions including cooperation in the trial and non-tampering with evidence. The court also directed verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedents [Para 10].

Civil Procedure – Additional Evidence – Order 41 Rule 27 CPC – Whether the appellate court can allow additional evidence not produced during the trial – Held, the appellate court can admit additional evidence when necessary to pronounce judgment or for substantial cause – The appellate court found that the deed of ‘Bondobosto’ by the Maharaja of Bardhaman, which could not be traced earlier, should be admitted – [Paras 1-40].

Remand of Case – Procedural Fairness – The court found that admitting additional evidence was essential for proper adjudication – The trial court was directed to hear the case afresh, specifically considering the additional evidence – The remand does not prejudice the parties as both had made claims and counterclaims – [Paras 40-50].

Order 6 Rule 17 CPC – Application for Amendment – The appellate court held that the amendment application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for modifying the plaint should be considered on merits by the trial court – Proper opportunity for objections and additional pleadings must be provided – [Paras 30-40].

Judicial Precedent – Reference to Sanjay Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand (2022) and Satish Chand Surana v. Raj Kumar Meshram (2021), where the Supreme Court emphasized the necessity for appellate courts to allow additional evidence if it is crucial for justice – [Paras 50-60].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – The appellate court's order admitting additional evidence and remanding the matter for a fresh trial was upheld – Trial court directed to conclude the proceedings within six months.