Motor Accident Compensation – Valuation of Homemaker’s Services – Structured Formula – Tribunal and High Court awarded inadequate compensation for death of housewife by undervaluing her contribution to the household – Supreme Court held that services rendered by homemakers must be recognized and quantified reasonably – Applied structured formula under Section 163A and fixed annual income at Rs. 60,000 – Award of Rs. 2.5 lakh enhanced to Rs. 6 lakh with interest [Paras 30–34, 61–63]

Gender Justice – Article 15(1) – Bias Against Homemakers – Court decried systemic gender bias in valuing unpaid domestic work of women – Criticised Census categorisation equating homemakers with beggars and prisoners – Recognized that homemakers perform valuable, non-market work vital to economic and social stability – Recommended legislative reforms to recognize and compensate such labour [Paras 2–12, 28]

Judicial Recognition – CEDAW and International Standards – Referred to India’s obligations under CEDAW to value and quantify women’s unpaid care work – Quoted international and domestic jurisprudence (e.g., Deepika v. NIC, Lata Wadhwa) – Urged development of gender-sensitive legal frameworks for assessing compensation in motor accident and matrimonial matters [Paras 14–20, 27]

Multiplier Method – Tribunal Error – Tribunal assessed income correctly using the structured formula but arbitrarily reduced compensation citing victim’s non-earning status – Held unjustified – High Court erroneously treated the deceased as non-contributor despite evidence – Multiplier method reaffirmed as appropriate for determining just compensation [Paras 33–34, 60–62]

Doctrine – Just Compensation – Reiterated that compensation must reflect the actual loss to dependents and not be arbitrary or tokenistic – Held: Even in absence of market income, homemaker’s services have pecuniary value and must be compensated using structured criteria under Section 163A Second Schedule [Paras 47–60]

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court and Tribunal judgments set aside – Compensation of Rs. 6 lakh awarded with 6% interest from date of claim application – Respondents directed to pay within 3 months – Appellants also awarded costs of Rs. 50,000.

Military Law – Disability Pension – Attributability to Military Service – Appellant invalided out for “unspecified psychosis” with 40% disability – Medical Board opined that disease was neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service, noting absence of service in field/high-altitude/stress conditions – Held: Appellant not entitled to disability pension under Regulation 173 – Medical Board’s opinion, being expert and unanimous, accepted [Paras 4–7, 19–21].

Pension Regulations – Regulation 173 – Requirements – To qualify for disability pension under Regulation 173, (i) disease must be attributable to or aggravated by military service, and (ii) assessed at 20% or more – Though disability exceeded threshold, attributability not established – Held: Failure of first limb of Regulation 173 bars entitlement [Paras 8–10].

Entitlement Rules – Presumption of Soundness – Benefit of Doubt – Rules 5 and 14 provide presumption of sound mental health at time of entry into service and benefit of doubt in absence of contrary evidence – Held: These beneficial rules to be liberally interpreted, but not blindly applied when medical board gives reasoned finding ruling out service connection [Paras 11–15].

Medical Board – Evidentiary Value – Judicial Review – Medical Board found disease not linked to service based on medical consensus and factual assessment of posting locations (peace areas) – Held: Opinion of Medical Board as expert body given due weight – Absent perversity or procedural irregularity, Court will not substitute its view on medical diagnosis [Paras 20–21].

Precedents – Similar Psychiatric Disability Cases – Court relied on prior rulings in Baljit Singh and Dhir Singh China where similar psychiatric illnesses held to be constitutional and not attributable to service – Held: Consistent view that expert medical opinion excluding service connection must be respected [Paras 16–18].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Medical Board’s finding upheld – No recovery of any disability pension amount already paid – Parties to bear own costs [Paras 21–22].

Criminal Law – Unlawful Assembly – Section 149 IPC – Common Object – Vicarious Liability – Eight accused charged for murder arising from land dispute – Deceased shot by co-accused Rajeshwar Singh; appellants armed with lethal weapons (spear, farsa, lathi) – Held: Even though only one fired the gun, all members of the assembly shared the common object to “teach a lesson” to the complainant party – Presence with deadly weapons and conduct showed awareness that murder was a likely consequence – Common object proved – Conviction under Sections 302/149 IPC justified – Vicarious liability under Section 149 correctly applied [Paras 13–19].

Right of Private Defence – Scope and Limitations – Sections 96–105 IPC – Plea of self-defence rejected – Accused were aggressors, having gone armed to the land in dispute – Deceased unarmed, engaged in cleaning land – No imminent threat to life or property – Right of private defence cannot be exercised against an unarmed person, nor used as a pretext for aggression – Doctrine protects only defensive acts, not retaliatory or vindictive ones – Held: Appellants failed to establish even preponderance of probability to sustain plea of private defence [Paras 20–28].

Criminal Law – Non-Explanation of Injuries on Accused – Effect on Prosecution Case – Omission to explain minor injuries on accused does not ipso facto vitiate prosecution case – Obligation arises only where (i) injuries are serious, and (ii) they are shown to have been caused during the same incident – Injury on appellant Sheo Jee Singh (swelling and fracture near elbow) superficial and not material – Conviction not affected [Paras 29–30].

Principles Reaffirmed –
– “Common object” does not require prior meeting of minds; can develop on the spot.
– Right of private defence is a defensive, not aggressive, right.
– Non-explanation of trivial injuries is not fatal to prosecution where evidence is otherwise cogent.

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction of appellants under Sections 302/149, 307/149, and related provisions upheld – Sentences affirmed [Para 31].

Civil Procedure – Abatement – Bringing Legal Representatives on Record – Order 22 Rules 3 & 9 CPC – Appellant died on 28.11.2007; application for substitution filed only on 15.04.2010 – Delay of 778 days – Plea that LRs were unaware of pending appeal and came to know only in 2010 – Held: Unacceptable. Applicants acted with gross negligence and approached the Court with unclean hands. They made contradictory averments and failed to offer any bona fide or reasonable explanation. Abatement is automatic if substitution is not sought within prescribed time. No sufficient cause shown – delay not condonable [Paras 4–6, 17–18].

Limitation Act – Section 5 – “Sufficient Cause” – Interpretation and Application – The expression “sufficient cause” must be applied reasonably and bona fide. Liberal interpretation is meant to advance justice, not to condone negligence or deliberate inaction. Judicial discretion cannot be exercised to defeat accrued legal rights of the opposite party. Each case must be judged on facts; liberal construction cannot override statutory limitation [Paras 13–16].

Doctrine of Abatement – Legal Consequence – On failure to substitute legal representatives of the deceased appellant within 90 days, appeal abates automatically by operation of law. Subsequent applications for setting aside abatement require demonstration of bona fide conduct and credible explanation for delay. Mere ignorance of law or pendency of appeal is not sufficient cause [Paras 7–9].

Judicial Discretion – Principles Restated –

Delay must be explained satisfactorily and truthfully; vague, contradictory, or false statements disentitle relief.

Sufficient cause presupposes absence of negligence, want of bona fides, or deliberate inaction.

Liberal approach cannot mean condoning culpable negligence or depriving the other party of vested rights.

Applications under Order 22 Rule 9 CPC and Section 5 Limitation Act are to be treated pari materia and require strict scrutiny [Paras 13–16].

Decision: Application for condonation of delay (I.A. No. 2 of 2010) dismissed – Application for bringing legal representatives on record (I.A. No. 1 of 2010) dismissed – Appeal stood abated and was accordingly dismissed – No order as to costs [Para 18].

Dowry Death – Section 304B IPC – Essential Ingredients – Deceased died due to burns within 7 years of marriage – Consistent statements by PW-1 (father), PW-2 (mother), and DW-3 (sister of deceased) established harassment and dowry demand for Rs. 5,000 and items like TV and fridge – Held: Prosecution established that cruelty occurred “soon before her death” – Presumption under Section 304B applicable – Conviction upheld [Paras 3, 25–27, 29–30].

Definition of Dowry – Section 2 of Dowry Prohibition Act – Scope – Demand for Rs. 5,000 for business purpose and consumer goods made by husband and in-laws held to be “in connection with the marriage” – Customary gifts or unrelated financial needs not covered – Held: Demand fell within legal definition of dowry [Paras 11–13, 20].

Presumption – Section 304B IPC – Rebuttal – Once prosecution proves dowry demand and cruelty proximate to death, presumption of guilt arises – Accused failed to rebut presumption – Defence claim that deceased was in love with another man found baseless and unsupported – Held: Deemed fiction under Section 304B rightly invoked [Paras 17–19, 24, 30].

Statement under Section 313 CrPC – Use in Trial – Cannot form sole basis of conviction – Can be used in conjunction with other prosecution evidence – Accused denied allegations but failed to explain incriminating circumstances – Held: Statement did not rebut prosecution case [Paras 22–23].

Delay in FIR – Justified – FIR lodged the next day after incident – No abnormal or unexplained delay – Conduct of complainant found consistent with normal human behaviour after death of relative – Held: No benefit to accused on this ground [Para 31].

Sentence – Reduction – Article 142 Invoked – Appellant not present at time of incident – Co-accused acquitted for lack of evidence – Marriage lasted only 1.5 years – Held: Minimum sentence of 7 years sufficient to meet ends of justice – Sentence reduced from 10 years to 7 years R.I. [Para 33].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Conviction under Section 304B IPC upheld – Sentence reduced from 10 years to 7 years of rigorous imprisonment – Appellant to be taken into custody to undergo remaining sentence.

Criminal Procedure – Cognizance – Section 202(2) CrPC – Requirement to examine “all witnesses” in complaint cases triable exclusively by Sessions Court – Held: The proviso to Section 202(2) is directory and not mandatory – Non-examination of all witnesses by the complainant does not vitiate the order of cognizance if the Magistrate is satisfied that a prima facie case exists – The expression “all his witnesses” implies that the complainant may choose to examine only such witnesses as he considers material to make out a prima facie case – Failure to examine others is not fatal [Paras 12, 14, 16].

Criminal Procedure – Purpose of inquiry under Sections 200–204 CrPC – The object of examining the complainant and witnesses is to ascertain whether a prima facie case exists, not to weigh evidence as in trial – Inquiry under Section 202 is limited and not a full-fledged trial – Magistrate must only see if sufficient ground exists for proceeding, not for conviction [Paras 8–11].

Interpretation of Statutes – Procedural Provisions – Use of word “shall” in Section 202(2) does not automatically make the provision mandatory – Procedural prescriptions must be interpreted to advance justice, not to defeat it – Unless prejudice is shown, non-compliance with procedural formality will not nullify proceedings [Paras 6, 12, 14].

Case Law – Rosy v. State of Kerala, (2000) 2 SCC 230 – Considered – Distinction drawn between opinions of Shah, J. and Thomas, J. – Both held that non-examination of all witnesses does not automatically vitiate proceedings – Followed [Paras 13–14].

Result – Order of High Court remitting case to Chief Judicial Magistrate for further inquiry set aside – Magistrate’s order taking cognizance restored – Magistrate directed to proceed under Section 209 CrPC within one month and Sessions Court to complete trial within nine months [Paras 16–17].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned order of Patna High Court set aside – Magistrate’s order of cognizance restored – Magistrate directed to commit case under Section 209 within one month – Sessions Judge to complete trial within nine months – Directions issued to Registrar General, Patna High Court for compliance.

Civil Procedure – Execution Proceedings – Auction Sale – Order 21 Rule 90 CPC – Appeal barred by delay of about two months – Appellate Court refused to condone delay for want of sufficient cause – High Court upheld dismissal – Held: Delay not inordinate and appellant acted bona fide – Mistake or negligence of counsel cannot always be visited upon the party when no mala fides are shown – Each case to be examined on its own facts – Justice demands adjudication on merits rather than dismissal on technicalities – Orders of Appellate Court and High Court set aside – Matter remitted to Executing Court for decision on merits [Paras 7, 13–16].

Limitation – Section 5, Limitation Act – Condonation of delay – Principles reiterated – “Sufficient cause” to be construed liberally to advance substantial justice – Unless mala fides or gross negligence apparent, delay should normally be condoned – Procedural delays should not eclipse substantive rights [Paras 13–15].

Judicial Discretion – Condonation of Delay – Discretion must be exercised to further justice, not defeat it – Courts should avoid hyper-technical approaches in matters of limitation where bona fides are evident – Delay of short duration not fatal [Paras 13–16].

Costs – Appellant directed to pay Rs. 50,000/- as condition precedent for restoration of objection petition – Costs imposed to balance equities and compensate respondent for prolonged deprivation of auction proceeds [Para 17].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Impugned orders of Appellate Court and High Court set aside – Matter remitted to Executing Court for disposal on merits – Appellant to pay Rs. 50,000/- to respondent within three weeks as condition precedent – Appellant to bear costs throughout.

Land Allotment – Additional Price Demand – Allotment under Discretionary Quota – Appellant allotted plot within 48 hours without standard procedure – Later issued demand for additional price based on revised compensation and development costs – Held: Demand justified as per Rules 2(aa), 2(e), 4 and 5 of the Punjab Urban Estates (Sales of Sites) Rules, 1965 – Calculation based on enhanced compensation and development charges valid – No arbitrariness or illegality in demand [Paras 3, 16–22].

Administrative Law – Negative Equality – Article 14 – Appellant relied on High Court’s judgment in D.S. Laungia case where demand was quashed – Held: Benefit wrongly granted to one party cannot be extended to others under Article 14 – Equality clause cannot be invoked to perpetuate illegality – State not bound by SLP dismissal in Laungia as it was withdrawn and not affirmed on merits [Paras 8, 10, 12–14].

Doctrine of Merger – Effect of Dismissal of SLP – Appellant argued that withdrawal of SLP in Laungia amounted to affirmation – Held: Dismissal or withdrawal of SLP without speaking order does not lead to merger or approval of High Court's judgment – No binding precedent created – Appellant cannot claim parity [Paras 8–11].

Allotment Process – Arbitrary Allotment – Plot allotted to appellant within 48 hours of application – Court held this to be arbitrary, unreasonable, and violative of Article 14 – However, given the development made by appellant, Court declined to cancel the allotment – Strong censure recorded [Para 26].

Urban Development – Tentative vs. Provisional Price – Distinction emphasized – Tentative price determined based on actual land acquisition cost, development cost, and escalation – Appellant’s claim that provisional price was final rejected – Board entitled to revise price in accordance with increase in costs [Paras 18–22, 24].

Public Finance – Protection of State Revenue – Court expressed concern over loss to public exchequer if incorrect withdrawals from pending SLPs are permitted – Directed that even past beneficiaries like Laungia are being pursued for recovery – Doctrine of public interest held paramount [Paras 12, 27].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – High Court judgment upheld – Additional price demand sustained – No costs imposed – Allotment process criticized but not invalidated due to subsequent development of land [Paras 25–28].

Service Law – Correction of Date of Birth – Bar under Punjab Civil Service Rules – Respondent sought correction of date of birth in service records from 27.03.1936 to 27.03.1938 based on University’s post-service amendment in matriculation certificate – Application made twelve years after entering service – Rule required such request within two years of joining – Held: Statutory bar under Para 1 of Annexure-A to Chapter II, Volume I, Punjab Civil Service Rules applies – Suit not maintainable [Paras 1, 5, 9–11, 15].

Service Law – Binding Effect of University’s Decision – Respondent got matriculation certificate amended by University after joining judicial service – Claimed that State and High Court were bound to update service book accordingly – Held: University’s change not binding on appointing authority – Date of birth once declared at recruitment and accepted in service records is conclusive unless corrected within statutory timeframe [Paras 2–4, 10–11].

Limitation – Amendment of Rules in 1994 – Amendment gave employees another two-year window to seek correction of date of birth – Respondent claimed suit was within limitation due to this change – Held: 1994 amendment not retrospective – Respondent did not apply after 21.06.1994 – Courts below erred in applying amended rule – Suit barred [Paras 7–8, 15].

Judicial Discipline – Delay and Injustice – Trial Court and appellate courts decreed suit relying on University change and 1994 amendment – High Court affirmed – Held: All courts misdirected themselves – Rule clearly prohibited correction after two years of service – Courts failed to consider delay of more than a decade – Orders set aside [Paras 8, 11, 15].

Service Jurisprudence – Correction of DOB – Courts must be cautious – Delay in seeking change can adversely affect administrative discipline, promotions, retirements – Held: No correction should be permitted unless claim is timely and supported by irrefutable proof – Interim reliefs should be denied unless strong prima facie case made out [Paras 12–13].

Doctrine of Estoppel – Date of Birth declared at entry – Respondent, a law graduate, aware of DOB in matriculation certificate and declared the same in service application – Later attempt to claim earlier DOB barred – Held: He is estopped from claiming change in absence of timely action [Paras 11, 14].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned judgment of High Court and lower courts set aside – Suit dismissed – No order as to costs in view of respondent’s retirement.