Motor Accident Compensation – Functional Disability – Self-Employed Victim – The claimant-appellant suffered severe injuries in a motor accident, leading to complete incapacitation – The Tribunal assessed permanent disability at 20%, while the High Court increased it to 100% – Held: The High Court correctly assessed the disability at 100%, as the appellant was unable to perform any gainful employment post-accident – Compensation awarded accordingly [Paras 6-7].

Income Determination – Enhancement of Monthly Income – The appellant contended that his monthly income should be considered at Rs. 10,000/- instead of Rs. 7,500/- as determined by the Tribunal and High Court – Held: In the absence of direct documentary proof, oral evidence and precedents establish that the appellant’s claim is reasonable – Monthly income fixed at Rs. 10,000/- for compensation computation [Paras 8-9].

Applicability of Future Prospects – Supreme Court Precedents – The High Court awarded future prospects at 40% – Held: Future prospects for self-employed individuals should be applied as per Pranay Sethi’s case – The High Court’s approach was correct and affirmed [Paras 9-10].

Calculation of Compensation – Proper Assessment – The Supreme Court reassessed the compensation under various heads, including medical expenses, pain and suffering, special diet, and loss of amenities – The total compensation awarded was Rs. 37,51,000/-, significantly higher than the Tribunal and High Court awards – Held: The revised compensation ensures just and fair compensation to the appellant [Paras 10-11].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Compensation enhanced from Rs. 25,68,938/- to Rs. 37,51,000/- – Interest to be paid as awarded by the Tribunal – High Court’s order modified accordingly [Para 11].

Motor Accident Compensation – Functional Disability – Self-Employed Victim – The claimant-appellant suffered amputation of his right leg above the knee due to a motor accident – The Tribunal assessed permanent disability at 50%, while the High Court did not increase it – Held: The appellant, being self-employed, required mobility for his livelihood – The correct assessment of functional disability should be 90%, as it significantly affects his earning capacity – Compensation enhanced accordingly [Paras 10-12].

Income Determination – Applicability of Future Prospects – The appellant claimed to earn Rs. 25,000/- per month, but the Tribunal and High Court assessed his notional income at Rs. 6,000/- per month – Held: Since no documentary proof was furnished, notional income was correctly fixed at Rs. 6,000/- – However, future prospects at 40% should be applied in accordance with Pranay Sethi’s case – The High Court correctly granted 40% enhancement under future prospects [Paras 8, 12].

Age Determination – Correct Application of Multiplier – The appellant’s age was determined as 22 years at the time of the accident based on documentary evidence – The Tribunal and High Court incorrectly considered his age as 26 – Held: As per Sarla Verma v. DTC (2009) 6 SCC 121, the correct multiplier for 22 years of age is 18 – Compensation reassessed accordingly [Paras 11, 12].

Heads of Compensation – Proper Assessment – The Supreme Court reassessed the compensation under various heads, including medical expenses, pain and suffering, loss of marriage prospects, special diet, and cost of assistive devices – The total compensation awarded was Rs. 28,93,494/-, significantly higher than the Tribunal and High Court awards – Held: The revised compensation is fair and just, considering the severity of injuries and impact on livelihood [Paras 12-13].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Compensation enhanced from Rs. 10,10,004/- to Rs. 28,93,494/- – Interest to be paid as awarded by the Tribunal – High Court’s order modified accordingly [Para 13].

Compassionate Appointment – Applicability of Financial Condition Criteria – Canara Bank Scheme of 1993 – The appellant bank rejected the respondent’s claim for compassionate appointment on the grounds that his family was receiving pension and had received terminal benefits – The High Court held that financial condition was not a relevant factor under the 1993 scheme – Held: The objectives of the scheme explicitly required proof of indigent circumstances – The High Court erred in disregarding the financial position of the family – Financial condition is a crucial factor for assessing eligibility under the 1993 scheme [Paras 8, 31, 44].

Relaxation of Age Limit – Applicability Under Compassionate Appointment Scheme – The respondent’s application was rejected for exceeding the upper age limit by eight months – The High Court directed age relaxation – Held: Age relaxation can only be considered if the applicant is otherwise eligible – Since the respondent did not meet the indigence requirement, the question of age relaxation did not arise – High Court’s direction was erroneous [Paras 34-35].

Judicial Precedents – Scope of Canara Bank v. M. Mahesh Kumar (2015) – The High Court heavily relied on Canara Bank (2015) to hold that financial condition was irrelevant for compassionate appointment – Held: The Supreme Court in the present case disagreed with the reasoning in Canara Bank (2015), stating that indigence is a fundamental requirement – The Court doubted the correctness of Canara Bank (2015) and refrained from referring it to a larger bench due to pending litigation – However, the present decision clarifies that financial condition is a mandatory consideration [Paras 39-40, 46].

Delay in Consideration of Claim – Lapse of Time and Impact on Compassionate Appointment – The respondent’s father passed away in 2001, and litigation persisted for over two decades – Held: Delay caused by court proceedings cannot be a ground to reject a claim – However, delay in filing an application may indicate lack of financial urgency – The respondent’s case did not merit compassionate appointment as he was not in indigent circumstances [Paras 25-28].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – The High Court’s judgment and order are set aside – The respondent is not entitled to compassionate appointment – However, under Article 142, the appellant bank is directed to make a lump sum payment of Rs. 2.5 lakh to the respondent as a final settlement – No further claims maintainable [Paras 49-51].

Service Tax – Lottery Distributors – Principal-Agent vs. Principal-to-Principal Relationship – No Service Tax Liability – The Government of Sikkim entered into agreements with the respondents for the sale of lottery tickets – The agreements provided for the outright sale of tickets, with unsold tickets being returned for destruction to ensure transparency – The consideration paid by the respondents was not in the nature of commission but was based on a wholesale price model – Held: The transactions were principal-to-principal sales, not agency transactions – No service tax liability could be imposed on the respondents under the Finance Act, 1994 [Paras 17.1–17.5].

Interpretation of Agency – Indian Contract Act, 1872 – Distinction Between Agent and Independent Contractor – An agent acts on behalf of the principal and alters the principal’s legal position in dealings with third parties – In contrast, an independent contractor or buyer acts in their own right and takes on commercial risk – The agreements in the present case do not establish an agency relationship but rather a sale transaction – Held: Since the respondents were purchasing lottery tickets for onward sale and not acting on behalf of the State Government, they were not agents and thus not liable to service tax [Paras 15.1–15.6, 16.1–16.8].

Finance Act, 1994 – Scope of Taxability – Amendments from 2010 to 2016 – The 2010 amendment introduced “promotion, marketing, organizing, or assisting in organizing lotteries” as a taxable service – The 2012 amendment included “betting, gambling, and lottery” in the Negative List, exempting them from service tax – Subsequent 2015 and 2016 amendments sought to exclude lottery distribution from the definition of “transaction in money or actionable claim” – Held: The substantive nature of the agreements remained that of sale and purchase – The amendments did not change the essential character of the relationship, and service tax was not applicable [Paras 18.1–18.6].

Doctrine of Noscitur a Sociis – Meaning of "Lottery" in the Context of Betting and Gambling – The expression “lottery” in Section 66D(i) of the Finance Act, 1994 must be read with “betting and gambling” using the principle of noscitur a sociis – A lottery is inherently a form of gambling, and taxation on lotteries falls within the State’s exclusive domain under Entry 62, List II of the Constitution – Held: Service tax cannot be levied on lottery distributors as they are not rendering a taxable service but participating in a State-regulated gambling activity [Paras 18.4–18.5].

Reaffirmation of K. Arumugam Case – Applicability to the Present Dispute – In K. Arumugam, the Supreme Court held that conducting a lottery is not a service but a State-regulated gambling activity – The differential between the price paid to the State and the price at which tickets were resold is the profit margin of the distributor, not a commission for services rendered – Held: The reasoning in K. Arumugam applies, and the respondents are not liable for service tax [Para 17.5].

Validity of Sikkim High Court Judgment – No Error in Setting Aside the Service Tax Demand – The Sikkim High Court ruled that lottery distributors were not agents and that service tax could not be imposed on lottery transactions – Held: The Sikkim High Court correctly applied legal principles, and there was no reason to interfere with its findings – Appeals filed by the Union of India were dismissed [Paras 19–20].

Decision: Appeals filed by the Union of India dismissed—Held that lottery distributors are not agents but independent buyers, and no service tax is payable.

Arbitration – Jurisdiction of Arbitral Tribunal – Oral Contract Establishing Joint and Several Liability – Award Upheld – The appellant, a stock broker, initiated arbitration against the respondents, a married couple, for the recovery of outstanding dues in the wife’s trading account – The arbitral tribunal found both respondents jointly and severally liable based on an oral contract – The High Court reversed this finding, holding that the oral agreement was a private transaction not covered under Bye-law 248(a) of the BSE – The Supreme Court held that an oral contract creating joint liability for trading transactions falls within the scope of the arbitration clause – Held: Arbitral tribunal had jurisdiction over the first respondent; High Court’s finding on lack of jurisdiction set aside [Paras 10-15].

Judicial Intervention in Arbitral Awards – Section 37 – Scope of Review – High Court Exceeded Jurisdiction – The High Court, in a Section 37 appeal, set aside the award on grounds of jurisdictional error, perversity, and patent illegality – The Supreme Court held that the High Court exceeded its appellate jurisdiction by reappreciating evidence and substituting its own findings – Section 37 does not permit an appellate court to interfere with an arbitral award unless there is clear perversity or patent illegality – Held: High Court’s interference with the arbitral award was unjustified and contrary to settled principles of arbitration law [Paras 22-27].

Joint and Several Liability – Determination Based on Conduct and Transactions – Finding of Arbitral Tribunal Restored – The arbitral tribunal found that both respondents had jointly managed trading transactions, issued instructions interchangeably, and had a history of netting off balances between accounts – The High Court disregarded these factual findings and held that oral evidence could not override formal agreements – The Supreme Court held that factual determinations made by an arbitral tribunal, based on evidence, cannot be overturned unless perverse or illegal – Held: Finding of joint and several liability restored, as it was based on reasonable appreciation of evidence [Paras 26-29].

Adjustment of Account Balances – Legality Under BSE Bye-laws and SEBI Guidelines – No Violation Found – The High Court held that the transfer of funds from the first respondent’s account to the second respondent’s account violated Bye-law 247A and SEBI Guidelines requiring written authorization – The Supreme Court disagreed, noting that Bye-law 247A permits such adjustments where joint liability exists – Further, Bye-law 227(a) provides a broker's lien over a client’s funds when liabilities exist – Held: Account adjustments were legally valid and within the permissible framework of BSE Bye-laws and SEBI regulations [Paras 29-31].

Decision – High Court Order Set Aside – Arbitral Award Upheld in Its Entirety – The Supreme Court reversed the High Court’s order and restored the arbitral award – The first respondent was held jointly and severally liable with the second respondent for the outstanding amount – The Supreme Court reiterated the principle that courts should not interfere with well-reasoned arbitral awards unless there is clear perversity or patent illegality – Held: Appeal allowed, arbitral award reinstated, and respondents directed to pay Rs. 1,18,48,069/- with 9% interest per annum from 01.05.2001 till repayment [Paras 32-33].

Criminal Law – Circumstantial Evidence – Failure to Prove Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt – Acquittal Granted – The appellant was convicted under Section 302 IPC for the murder of one Ramlal based solely on circumstantial evidence – The prosecution alleged that the appellant was last seen with the deceased, had a motive related to non-payment of wages, and fled from the scene with a farsi (axe) – The Supreme Court held that the circumstances relied upon were not conclusive, and the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of evidence to exclude all other possibilities – Held: Conviction set aside; appellant acquitted [Paras 9-12, 16-18].

Motive – Alleged Wage Dispute – Found to be Insufficient and Unsubstantiated – The prosecution claimed that the appellant had a strained relationship with the deceased due to non-payment or delayed payment of wages – The Supreme Court observed that such a dispute, even if assumed to exist, was too trivial to motivate a murder – Further, no independent evidence supported the existence of any discord between the appellant and the deceased – Held: Motive not established beyond reasonable doubt [Para 11].

Last Seen Theory – Uncorroborated Testimony – Not a Conclusive Circumstance – The prosecution relied on the testimony of Budhiyarin Bai (PW-5), the wife of the deceased, who claimed that she left home while the appellant was with the deceased and later saw him running away – However, her statements were inconsistent, and no other witness corroborated the claim that the appellant had returned after allegedly leaving for his native village – Held: Last seen theory not established with certainty; cannot be the sole basis for conviction [Paras 12-14].

Recovery of Weapon – Farsi (Axe) – Doubtful and Not Linked to Crime – The alleged murder weapon was recovered nearly 20-25 days after the incident based on the appellant’s supposed disclosure – The prosecution failed to produce forensic evidence linking the bloodstains on the weapon to the deceased – The Supreme Court held that the recovery was unreliable, and the absence of forensic confirmation further weakened the prosecution’s case – Held: Recovery of weapon does not establish guilt; benefit of doubt given to the appellant [Paras 13-14].

Witness Testimonies – Contradictions and Lack of Corroboration – Creates Doubt on Prosecution Case – The prosecution witnesses, including the complainant Jogi Ram (PW-1), made conflicting statements regarding whether the appellant was seen fleeing the crime scene – The wife of the deceased initially stated that the appellant had already fled before she returned but later claimed to have seen him running away – The Supreme Court held that such contradictions created serious doubt about the prosecution’s version – Held: Witness inconsistencies weaken the case; benefit of doubt must be given to the accused [Paras 14-15].

Forensic Evidence – Absence of Conclusive Blood Analysis – Weakens Prosecution Case – The clothes allegedly worn by the appellant at the time of the incident had bloodstains, but the prosecution failed to prove that the stains matched the blood of the deceased – The Supreme Court observed that in the absence of forensic confirmation, such evidence could not be relied upon to convict the appellant – Held: Lack of scientific corroboration further weakens prosecution case [Para 15].

Decision – Conviction Set Aside – Acquittal Granted – Appellant Already Released on Bail – The Supreme Court ruled that the prosecution failed to prove the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt – The circumstantial evidence did not establish a conclusive chain pointing to the appellant’s involvement – The benefit of doubt was given to the appellant, and his conviction was set aside – Since he had already served over 10 years in jail and was on bail, his sureties and bail bonds were discharged – Held: Appeal allowed, conviction set aside, and appellant acquitted [Paras 17-19].

Motor Accident Claim – Compensation Computation – Reliance on Minimum Wages – Set Aside – The claimant-appellant, a young student, sustained grievous injuries in a motor accident – The Tribunal awarded Rs.7,09,303/- as compensation, which was enhanced by the High Court to Rs.23,90,719/- but based on minimum wages – The Supreme Court held that for a student in his twenties, notional income should not be equated to that of an unskilled worker – Instead, reliance was placed on Harpreet Singh v. Navjot Singh, fixing notional income at Rs.10,000/- per month – Compensation recalculated to Rs.34,56,103/- with interest at 7.5% per annum – Held: Appeal allowed, and compensation enhanced accordingly [Paras 6-9].

Joint and Several Liability – Compensation Payment – Insurer Liable – The Tribunal held all respondents, including the driver, owner, and insurer, jointly and severally liable to pay compensation – However, the primary responsibility was placed on the insurer to discharge the liability – The Supreme Court upheld this finding, reaffirming that the insurer must pay the awarded sum in full – Held: Tribunal's finding on liability upheld [Para 5].

Public Employment – Recruitment Process – Non-Compliance with Constitutional Requirements – Declared Invalid – The recruitment process initiated through the advertisement dated 29th July 2010 for Class IV posts was challenged on grounds of non-transparency and violation of Articles 14 and 16 – The Supreme Court held that a valid public employment advertisement must specify the total number of vacancies, reservations, eligibility criteria, and selection procedure – The Court found that the advertisement failed to meet these requirements and was thus unconstitutional – Held: Advertisement and consequential appointments quashed [Paras 17-24].

Natural Justice – Non-Impleadment of Affected Candidates – Not Required When Appointments Are Null and Void – The appellant-employee argued that the termination order was passed without affording him an opportunity of hearing – The Supreme Court held that principles of natural justice are not applicable when appointments are found to be void ab initio – Since the recruitment process was unconstitutional, hearing the affected candidates would have been a futile exercise – Held: No requirement to afford a hearing in cases of void appointments [Paras 30-32].

Cancellation of Selection Process – Backdoor Entry – No Right to Continue in Service – The Court reaffirmed that appointments made without following due process are a nullity in law – Individuals who gain employment through an invalid selection process cannot claim a vested right to continue in service – Held: Candidates selected through unconstitutional recruitment cannot claim a legitimate right to employment [Paras 34-38].

Directive for Fresh Recruitment – Age Relaxation for Affected Candidates – Recognizing the prolonged litigation and its impact on candidates who might have crossed the age limit, the Court directed the State to issue a fresh advertisement within six months, ensuring compliance with constitutional mandates – Age relaxation was also ordered for previously eligible candidates – Held: Fresh recruitment process to be conducted within six months with age relaxation for affected candidates [Para 41].

Decision – Advertisement and Consequential Appointments Quashed – Fresh Recruitment Ordered – The advertisement dated 29th July 2010 and all consequential appointments were quashed for violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution – The Supreme Court declared all appointments made under the previous recruitment process invalid and set them aside – The State of Jharkhand was directed to conduct a fresh recruitment process within six months, ensuring compliance with constitutional mandates – Suitable age relaxation was ordered to accommodate affected candidates who might have crossed the age limit – Held: Appeals disposed of accordingly [Paras 41-45].

Criminal Law – Circumstantial Evidence – Prosecution Failed to Establish Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt – Acquittal Granted – The appellant was convicted for the murder of his first wife based on circumstantial evidence – Key prosecution witnesses, including the deceased’s brother and sister, turned hostile and denied any foul play – The medical opinion on the cause of death was inconclusive, and the investigating officer’s recovery of the alleged murder weapon was unreliable – Held: Prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of evidence; conviction set aside, and appellant acquitted [Paras 17-19, 25].

Burden of Proof – Applicability of Section 106 of the Evidence Act – Not a Substitute for Prosecution’s Failure – The State argued that, as per Section 106 of the Evidence Act, the appellant was obligated to explain the circumstances leading to the death, as the incident occurred in his home – The Supreme Court held that the initial burden always rests on the prosecution to establish prima facie guilt – Only after such a burden is discharged does Section 106 come into play – Held: Section 106 cannot be invoked when the prosecution fails to establish essential elements of the crime [Paras 20-23].

Medical Evidence – Cause of Death Not Conclusive – Tuberculosis Considered a Possibility – The post-mortem report indicated that the deceased died due to asphyxia, possibly caused by hanging – However, the doctor admitted in cross-examination that asphyxia could also result from chronic tuberculosis, which the appellant claimed the deceased was suffering from – The Court noted that the prosecution failed to counter this alternative possibility – Held: Cause of death remained uncertain, and benefit of doubt must go to the accused [Paras 15-16, 24].

Statement Under Section 313 CrPC – Failure to Rebut Defense – Strengthens Case for Acquittal – The appellant, in his statement under Section 313 CrPC, stated that his wife died a natural death due to tuberculosis – The prosecution neither produced medical records nor re-examined the post-mortem doctor to refute this claim – The Court observed that the unexplained failure to disprove the defense version weakened the prosecution’s case – Held: Prosecution’s inability to counter the appellant’s defense entitled him to acquittal [Paras 24-25].

Acquittal and Release – Over Ten Years in Custody – Immediate Release Ordered – The appellant had already served more than ten years in custody – The Supreme Court found no justification for further incarceration and directed his immediate release – Held: Conviction set aside; appellant ordered to be released forthwith [Paras 26-27].

Decision – Conviction Set Aside – Acquittal Granted – Immediate Release Ordered – The prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt, as required in circumstantial evidence cases – The alternative possibility of natural death due to tuberculosis remained unrefuted by the prosecution – Section 106 of the Evidence Act cannot be used to compensate for the prosecution’s failure to prove essential elements of the crime – The appellant had already served over ten years in custody and was ordered to be released immediately – Held: Appeal allowed, conviction set aside, and appellant directed to be released forthwith [Paras 25-27].