Service Law – Departmental Proceedings – Misappropriation – Judicial Review – Gramin Dak Sevak/Branch Postmaster found to have misappropriated public funds; admitted guilt and later deposited amounts – Inquiry conducted with full opportunity; no procedural violation – High Court set aside removal by reappreciating evidence and accepting new plea of coercion – Held: High Court exceeded judicial review jurisdiction; disciplinary authority’s penalty of removal restored – Appeal allowed [Paras 3, 7–12].

Service Law – Departmental Misconduct – Misappropriation of Public Funds – GDS/Branch Postmaster - Irregularities found during inspection (16.06.2011) revealed misappropriation of recurring deposit instalments and insurance premium despite entries stamped in passbooks; corresponding entries missing in official account books – Chargesheet issued (17.12.2013) – Inquiry Officer found charges proved – Respondent admitted embezzlement and deposited amounts; sought forgiveness – Held: Evidence clearly established embezzlement; deposit of misappropriated amount does not absolve misconduct [Paras 2, 5–10].

Judicial Review – Scope under Article 226 – Reappreciation of Evidence Impermissible - High Court examined merits, revisited admissions, and accepted plea of coercion not raised during inquiry – Supreme Court held that judicial review is confined to examining legality of procedure, not merits or sufficiency of evidence – High Court erred in interfering with concurrent findings of Disciplinary Authority, Appellate Authority and Tribunal [Paras 3–4, 11].

Departmental Inquiry – Admission of Guilt – Later Retraction – Effect - Respondent’s statement dated 28.04.2012 admitted spending deposited amounts for household purposes – Retraction on allegation of Inspector’s pressure raised belatedly and rejected – Held: Explanation an afterthought; inquiry and opportunity proper; no defect found in procedure [Paras 7–9, 11].

Banking/Post Office – Fiduciary Relationship – Public Confidence - Court emphasised that banking/postal transactions rely on trust – Passbook entry satisfies depositor; depositor has no means to check official account books – Misappropriation discovered only incidentally; cannot be trivialised as “mistake” or “ignorance” by employee with 12 years of service – Ignorance of rules not acceptable [Para 11].

Punishment – Removal from Service – Proportionality - Considering gravity of involving financial integrity and public trust, punishment of removal held justified – High Court erred in substituting its view on proportionality without finding procedural infirmity – Penalty restored [Paras 10–12].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court judgment set aside – Punishment of removal from service upheld [Para 12].

Civil Law – Counterclaim – Co-defendant – Specific performance – Plaintiff sued sole defendant for specific performance of oral agreement for 0.93 acres – Subsequent impleadment of defendant Nos. 2 & 3 claiming agreement to purchase same land and raising counterclaim for conveyance against defendant No. 1 – Trial Court and High Court permitted counterclaim to avoid multiplicity – Supreme Court applying Rohit Singh and Rajul Mano Shah holds counterclaim under Order 8 Rule 6A CPC must be directed against plaintiff and not co-defendant – Counterclaim of defendants 2 & 3 held not maintainable, found lacking concrete and timely enforceable claim in any event – Liberty to file separate suit declined as claim already barred by limitation – Appeal allowed – Counterclaim set aside and parties relegated to trial on remaining issues [Paras 2, 5-8, 9-15, 16].

Civil Procedure – Counterclaim under Order 8 Rule 6A CPC – Direction of claim – Counterclaim cannot be maintained against co-defendant – Plaintiff filed suit for specific performance against sole defendant for 0.93 acres based on oral agreement and payment of consideration – After impleadment, defendant Nos. 2 & 3 raised counterclaim for transfer of entire land against defendant No. 1 alone – Relying on Rohit Singh v. State of Bihar, (2006) 12 SCC 734 and Rajul Mano Shah @ Rajeshwari Rasiklal Sheth v. Kiranbhai Shakrabhai Patel, (2025) 10 SCR 152, Court reiterates that though counterclaim may be based on a different but connected cause of action, it has necessarily to be directed against the plaintiff and cannot be directed against a co-defendant – Counterclaim of defendant Nos. 2 & 3 therefore unsustainable in law [Paras 2, 4-7, 9-11, 14].

Civil Procedure – Specific performance suit – Impleadment of persons in possession – Non-joinder of necessary parties – Effect – Sole defendant pleaded that defendant Nos. 2 & 3 were in possession of part of the suit property – They were impleaded on their own application – Court holds that once such parties are impleaded, the suit no longer suffers from defect of non-joinder of necessary parties on the ground of possession – Their presence is necessary so that, if decree for specific performance is granted, plaintiff may also seek recovery of possession – However, such impleadment does not legitimise an otherwise incompetent counterclaim against a co-defendant [Paras 6-7, 12, 14].

Specific performance – Competing claims over same property – Lack of concrete and consistent plea by subsequent purchasers – Defendant Nos. 2 & 3 first asserted an agreement to purchase entire land for Rs.5,50,000 with part-payment of Rs.2,95,000 – They also conceded that 43 decimals out of same land were agreed to be conveyed to plaintiff’s father for Rs.2,55,000 and alleged fraudulent alteration in receipt from 43 to 93 decimals – Ultimately claimed at least 50 decimals be conveyed to them based only on part-payment, without a clear agreement for that part – Court finds their stand shifting and “no concrete claim” against property, even for purposes of counterclaim [Paras 5-8, 13].

Limitation – Counterclaim for specific performance – Belated claim – Liberty to file separate suit – Cause of action for defendants 2 & 3 claimed to have arisen on 02.12.2002 – Their impleadment application and counterclaim filed only in 2006 – Court holds that at the time of filing counterclaim, claim for specific performance was already barred by limitation – Consequently, no reason to grant liberty to file a separate suit at this stage when claim is “grossly delayed” and already time-barred – Liberty to institute independent proceedings refused [Paras 7-8, 13, 15].

Civil Procedure – High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 – Approach disapproved – High Court dismissed plaintiff’s Article 227 petition on ground of avoiding multiplicity and observed that maintainability of counterclaim could be decided in the suit – Supreme Court holds that when law is settled that counterclaim cannot be directed against co-defendant, permitting such counterclaim to proceed is impermissible – Order of Trial Court and High Court upholding counterclaim set aside [Paras 3-4, 9-11, 14, 16].

Civil Procedure – Trial to proceed on remaining issues – Scope preserved – While setting aside counterclaim of defendant Nos. 2 & 3, Court clarifies that impleadment of said defendants continues to save suit from defect of non-joinder on ground of possession – No finding is rendered on possession – Trial Court to determine possession and, if so appropriately sought, grant recovery of possession in favour of plaintiff – All contentions except validity of counterclaim kept open for adjudication at trial [Paras 12, 14, 16-17].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Orders of Trial Court and High Court permitting counterclaim by defendant Nos. 2 & 3 set aside – Counterclaim rejected as not maintainable against co-defendant and as time-barred and lacking concrete basis – Defendants 2 & 3 to remain as parties for purposes of adjudication of possession and other issues – Parties relegated to Trial Court to agitate all contentions except that of counterclaim of defendants 2 & 3, which stands finally negatived – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 14-17].

Environmental Law – Protection of Delhi Ridge – Directions for Statutory Constitution and Functioning of DRMB – Supreme Court directs Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) to constitute the Delhi Ridge Management Board (DRMB) as a statutory body under Section 3(3) of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 – Earlier, DRMB functioned under court orders without statutory backing – Held: Without statutory authority, effective and accountable functioning of DRMB was not possible – Further directed constitution of a Standing Committee for daily functioning and mandated DRMB to act as single-window authority for all issues relating to Delhi Ridge and Morphological Ridge [Paras 41-47, 50-52, 57].

Forest Conservation – Final Notification under Section 20, Indian Forest Act – Non-notification of Delhi Ridge deprives area of legal protection – Although preliminary notifications under Section 4 were issued in 1994 and 1996, final notification under Section 20 still pending – NGT (2021) and High Court (2024) directed GNCTD to issue notification – Court held delay unjustified – Ridge must be notified as Reserved Forest for its ecological integrity to be preserved [Paras 4, 5, 34, 35].

Environmental Degradation – Encroachment on Delhi Ridge – CEC Report and court-appointed authorities noted rampant encroachments – Court observed lack of active steps from GNCTD – Held: Encroachments defeat purpose of ecological protection – Directed DRMB to ensure removal of encroachments from both Delhi Ridge and Morphological Ridge [Paras 8, 36, 54, 57(iii)(c)].

Ecological Preservation – Morphological Ridge – Ridge-like areas outside notified Ridge require equal protection – Affirmed legal necessity for their identification and conservation – Held: Morphological Ridge must be preserved in same manner as notified Ridge – Committee formed by Court in 2023 directed to complete identification process – DRMB to ensure protection and ecological restoration of the Morphological Ridge [Paras 11-14, 37, 38, 57(iii)(d)-(e)].

Environmental Governance – Multiplicity of Monitoring Bodies – Presence of overlapping committees (CEC, NGT Oversight Committee, High-Powered Committees) causing duplication and conflicting decisions – Court directed MoEF&CC to consolidate functions into a single authority – DRMB reconstituted with statutory status and given sole monitoring authority – Standing Committee constituted under DRMB for efficient functioning [Paras 25-27, 39, 40, 50-52, 57].

Legal Accountability – DRMB's Statutory Status and Judicial Review – Held: DRMB must have statutory status to ensure transparency, accountability, and judicial scrutiny – Orders of DRMB would be subject to challenge before NGT under Section 14 of NGT Act or before High Court under Articles 226/227 – DRMB to function under environmental rule of law ensuring participatory governance [Paras 42-46].

Institutional Framework – Composition and Functions of Statutory DRMB – DRMB to consist of 13 members including Chief Secretary, GNCTD (Chair), representatives from MoEF&CC, DDA, civic bodies, civil society, and CEC – DRMB directed to undertake scientific management, ecological restoration, and prevent fragmentation of Ridge – Required to submit six-monthly reports and maintain transparency through public notices, consultations and website publication [Paras 57(i), 57(iii)(a)-(h)].

Judicial Supervision – Role of CEC in DRMB – Representative of Central Empowered Committee to be permanent member of DRMB – To submit quarterly reports to Supreme Court on DRMB’s performance – Held: CEC’s long-standing role in Ridge protection justifies its formal inclusion in DRMB [Paras 48, 49, 57(iv)].

Decision: Directions issued – MoEF&CC to notify DRMB under Section 3(3) of EP Act – DRMB to be sole authority for Ridge issues – Standing Committee to be constituted – Identification and notification of Morphological Ridge to be completed – Encroachments to be removed – Periodic reports to be submitted to Supreme Court.

Religious Endowment – Execution of Compromise Decree – Dispute between two sects of Kuruba community over custody of idols and performance of pooja to deity Lord Sangalappa Swamy – Compromise decree passed on 01.11.1933 provided for rotational pooja, joint trusteeship, and shared possession of idols and articles – Execution Petition filed in 2000 alleging non-compliance by respondents – Held: Appellants failed to prove breach or that respondents were ever in possession – Execution cannot be granted based on presumptions – High Court rightly set aside Executing Court’s order [Paras 1–2, 5–7, 23–28]

Civil Procedure – Execution of Decree – Onus on Decree-Holder – Decree-holder must prove willful disobedience or breach of decree by judgment-debtor – No evidence adduced to show rotation of idols occurred or that Rs.2,000/- was paid as per Clause (1) of decree – Decree not acted upon for decades – Mere long silence cannot be presumed as compliance – Held: Presumption cannot substitute proof in execution proceedings [Paras 24–26, 28]

Religious Practices – Implementation of Ritual Rotation – Compromise decree required rotation of idols every six months and alternating pooja every three months – Also required appointment of two trustees from each group – No material produced to prove appointment of trustees or maintenance of accounts – Admitted failure to implement decree – Held: Scheme under decree never operationalised – Absence of compliance points to continued exclusive possession by appellants themselves [Paras 25–27]

Evidence – Presumption vs Proof – Executing Court proceeded on presumption that respondents had custody due to absence of prior dispute – However, no documentary or independent evidence produced – Testimony of witnesses consisted of bare assertions – Appellants’ own witness admitted uncertainty regarding custody and non-payment of Rs.2,000/- – Held: Findings based on assumption without proof are legally unsustainable [Paras 24–26]

Execution of Consent Decree – Long Delay and Inaction – Compromise decree passed in 1933 – Execution sought only in 2000 – No proof of continuous implementation – No trustee system shown to have been followed – Non-payment of agreed amount by respondents evident – Held: Decree never acted upon – Execution barred due to lack of factual foundation [Paras 6, 7, 25–28]

Findings of Fact – High Court’s Interference with Executing Court – High Court reversed Executing Court’s order due to lack of evidence and reliance on mere inferences – Findings of fact revisited only where trial court’s findings are based on conjecture or are unsupported – Held: High Court committed no error in setting aside execution on factual grounds [Paras 13, 28–29]

Decision: Appeals dismissed – No interference warranted with High Court’s judgment setting aside execution of 1933 compromise decree – Execution Petition rightly held unsustainable for lack of proof [Para 29]

Criminal Law – Curative Petition – Acquittal – Petitioner convicted and sentenced to death in the Rimpa Haldar murder case based on a Section 164 CrPC confession and alleged recoveries under Section 27 of the Evidence Act – Subsequent acquittals in 12 companion cases based on same evidentiary foundation – High Court and later Supreme Court found the confession inadmissible and recoveries unreliable – Held: Manifest miscarriage of justice as identical facts yielded inconsistent judicial outcomes – Curative jurisdiction rightly invoked to preserve judicial integrity [Paras 1, 5, 10, 16]

Curative Jurisdiction – Scope and Principles – Narrowly limited to correcting gross miscarriage of justice and abuse of process – Not a second review – Triggered where outcomes are irreconcilably inconsistent on same factual substratum or where natural justice is violated – Finality yields to constitutional duty in cases of manifest injustice – Reaffirmed that this jurisdiction arises ex debito justitiae and flows from Articles 129, 137, 142 of the Constitution and Order XLVIII of Supreme Court Rules – [Paras 2, 3, 4]

Confession under Section 164 CrPC – Voluntariness and Admissibility – Confession by petitioner found inadmissible in 12 other cases – Petitioner was in continuous police custody for ~60 days before confession – No meaningful legal aid – Investigating Officer’s proximity compromised voluntariness – Repeated references in confession to coercion and tutoring – Magistrate failed to record unequivocal satisfaction on voluntariness – Bar under Section 24 of Evidence Act attracted – Same confession cannot be treated as voluntary in present case when judicially discredited elsewhere [Paras 8.2, 11]

Discovery and Recovery – Section 27 Evidence Act – Alleged recoveries made from open public areas already under excavation – No contemporaneous disclosure memo proved – Contradictions in remand and seizure records – Public and police had prior knowledge of recovery sites – Recovery site not under exclusive domain of petitioner – Held: Essential elements of legal discovery missing – Section 27 inapplicable – Findings already accepted in companion acquittals apply equally here [Paras 8.3, 12]

Forensic Evidence – Insufficiency and Inconsistency – No human bloodstains, tissue, or trace evidence recovered from D-5 despite claims of multiple homicides and dismemberment – DNA analysis aided identification but not authorship – Knives and axe recovered bore no incriminating material – No expert evidence linking implements to injuries or petitioner’s capability to commit acts alleged – Circumstantial chain incomplete – Forensic gaps fatal to prosecution case [Paras 8.4, 8.5, 13]

Investigation – Deficiencies and Fairness – Investigation found seriously flawed – Disclosure not contemporaneously recorded – Remand papers contradicted prosecution theory – No medical documentation during long custody – Confession recording process lacked independence – Failure to investigate key leads (e.g., organ trade angle flagged by Ministry) – Witnesses from household and vicinity not examined – Held: Investigative lapses corroded fairness, reliability and integrity of process [Paras 8.6, 14, 18]

Constitutional Law – Articles 14 and 21 – Right to Equality and Fair Procedure – Conviction cannot stand on evidentiary basis already held legally inadmissible in identical matters – Upholding conviction would violate Article 14 (equality) and Article 21 (life and personal liberty) – Like cases must be treated alike – Disparity in identical records undermines rule of law – Held: Principles of equality and fairness demand relief under curative jurisdiction [Paras 9, 15, 16]

Presumption of Innocence – Grave Suspicion vs Legal Proof – Court reaffirms that criminal conviction must rest on proof beyond reasonable doubt – Suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute for legal evidence – Especially vital where capital sentence is imposed or serious consequences follow – [Para 17]

Final Relief – Curative Petition allowed – Supreme Court judgment dated 15.02.2011 affirming conviction and death sentence set aside – Review order dated 28.10.2014 also recalled – Conviction and sentence under Sections 302, 364, 376, 201 IPC quashed – Petitioner acquitted – Ordered to be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case – Connected SLPs disposed as infructuous [Paras 19–25]

Decision: Curative Petition allowed – Conviction and sentence under IPC set aside – Petitioner acquitted – Release directed – All related proceedings disposed of as infructuous.

Tenancy Law - Rent Control – Eviction on Ground of Wilful Default – Lessee initially paid rent at Rs.33,000/- p.m. against landlord’s claim of Rs.48,000/- – Rent Controller fixed fair rent at Rs.2,43,600/- p.m. with effect from 01.02.2005 – Lessee neither sought nor obtained stay of fair rent order – Lessee continued paying lower amount despite finality of fair rent order – Arrears accumulated and full settlement only made on 11.01.2013 – Held: Failure to pay fair rent despite judicial determination and absence of stay constitutes wilful default – Eviction rightly ordered [Paras 21, 22, 24, 28, 32]

Rent Control – Determination of Wilful Default – Fair rent fixed by Rent Controller not stayed at any stage of appellate or revisional proceedings – Despite confirmation by appellate authority and partial modification by High Court, lessee delayed payment for several years – Payments made only in instalments and belatedly – Held: Such conduct evidences deliberate and conscious default – Explanation to Section 10(2)(i) of Tamil Nadu Rent Control Act does not require notice as mandatory precondition – Rent Controller retains discretion to assess wilfulness even in absence of notice [Paras 21–28]

Civil Procedure – Effect of Appeal Without Stay – Appeal or revision against order fixing fair rent does not by itself operate as stay – Lessee cannot claim protection merely due to pendency of appeal when no stay was obtained – Judicial finality attaches to Rent Controller’s order unless stayed or overturned – Held: Non-payment during pendency without stay cannot absolve lessee of wilful default [Paras 23, 24, 29–31]

Interpretation of Statutes – Explanation to Section 10(2)(i), Tamil Nadu Rent Control Act – Two-month notice by landlord creates statutory presumption of wilful default – However, absence of such notice does not bar eviction – Rent Controller may still determine wilfulness based on tenant's conduct – Wilful default inferred from deliberate non-payment despite judicial directions – [Paras 25–27]

Tenant’s Conduct – Instalment Payments and Arrears – Tenant cleared arrears only after dismissal of SLPs and after six years from fair rent order – Arrears not cleared promptly despite legal notice and judicial pronouncements – Held: Belated payments do not negate wilfulness where delay is deliberate and unexplained – Pendency of appeal not sufficient justification [Paras 22, 29–31]

Revisional Jurisdiction – High Court’s Interference – High Court rightly declined interference with concurrent findings of appellate authority on wilful default – No jurisdictional error or perversity shown – Held: Revisional court need not re-appreciate facts absent material error or illegality – [Para 32]

Final Relief – Appeal dismissed – Eviction order affirmed – Appellants granted six months' time to vacate subject to filing of usual undertaking within two weeks – In default, landlord entitled to initiate execution [Paras 33, 34]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Eviction upheld – Time of six months granted to vacate upon undertaking – No costs.

Civil Procedure – Rejection of Plaint – Maintainability of Appeal – Commercial Suit filed without Pre-Institution Mediation under Section 12A of CCA 2015 – Trial Court rejected plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Held: Rejection of plaint amounts to a 'decree' under Section 2(2) CPC – Such decree is appealable under Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 – High Court erred in holding appeal to be non-maintainable [Paras 5, 9, 13-15, 20-21]

Commercial Courts Act – Section 13(1A) – Interpretation – Main provision permits appeals against judgments and orders of Commercial Court – Proviso restricts appeals only for interlocutory orders listed in Order XLIII CPC – Held: Rejection of plaint is not an interlocutory order and not covered by the proviso – Hence appeal lies under the main provision [Paras 16-17]

Distinction from Precedent – Bank of India v. Maruti Civil Works – Distinguished – In that case, rejection of application under Order VII Rule 10 or 11(d) was challenged – Court clarified only allowed orders under Rule 10 are appealable under Order XLIII – But rejection of plaint (not application) constitutes a decree, hence distinguishable and appealable [Paras 18-19]

Right to Remedy – Plaintiff whose plaint is rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC cannot be left remediless – Filing of a fresh suit not an appropriate alternative – Appeal is the proper remedy [Para 20]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned judgment of High Court set aside – Appeal before High Court held to be maintainable – Restored for decision on merits – No order as to costs.

DNA Testing – Presumption of Legitimacy – Criminal Proceedings – Section 112 Evidence Act – Right to Privacy – Constitution of India – DNA test sought to prove that appellant fathered child during subsistence of marriage between Respondent No.1 and her husband Abdul Latheef – Supreme Court held: statutory presumption under Section 112 protects child’s legitimacy unless non-access is proved – No material evidence of non-access or incapacity of husband produced – Birth and school records name Abdul Latheef as father – Mere allegation of extramarital affair or simultaneous access does not rebut presumption – DNA test cannot be ordered to displace conclusive proof without strong evidence [Paras 24–37]

Right to Privacy – Consent and Bodily Autonomy – DNA Test – Court reiterated that DNA testing infringes right to privacy under Article 21 – Such testing must satisfy test of legality, legitimate aim and proportionality – Respondent No.1’s willingness to undergo test does not override rights of appellant and the now-major child – No legitimate state interest shown – Held: direction for DNA test is disproportionate and unconstitutional [Paras 45–48]

Adverse Inference – Section 114 Evidence Act – Refusal to undergo DNA test – Respondent sought adverse inference against appellant – Court held: such inference can only arise if presumption under Section 112 is first rebutted – Since non-access not proved, no occasion arises to invoke Section 114 – Respondent cannot bypass requirement of displacing statutory presumption [Para 50]

Criminal Procedure – Sections 53 and 53A CrPC – Medical examination of accused – High Court relied on these provisions to justify DNA test – Court held: Sections 53 and 53A applicable only where examination directly relates to proving offence – Cheating and harassment charges do not require paternity proof – Use of DNA test in absence of nexus with alleged offence is unjustified and intrusive [Paras 55–57]

Judicial Discretion – Use of Scientific Tools – Court cautioned against routine or speculative use of DNA testing – Strong prima facie case and ‘eminent need’ must be shown – Held: Scientific advancement must not override legal safeguards – Ethical and psychological implications, especially for now-major child, must be considered – DNA test cannot be directed as a fishing inquiry or to satisfy mere suspicion [Paras 28–31, 51]

Collateral Issue – Paternity not central to criminal charge – FIR does not hinge on paternity of child – Child not party to proceedings – Direction for DNA test held to be irrelevant and disproportionate to charges under IPC and Tamil Nadu Act – Held: Paternity is at best a collateral issue and DNA test unnecessary for adjudication of cheating or harassment allegations [Paras 52–54]

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court judgment dated 10.05.2017 in Writ Appeal (MD) No.521 of 2017 set aside – Direction for DNA test quashed – Section 112 of the Evidence Act upheld – No adverse inference to be drawn from appellant’s refusal – Paternity not essential to establish offences alleged – No compelling investigative need shown.

Motor Accident Compensation – Permanent Disability – Minor Victim – Multiplier Method – 14-year-old appellant sustained 77.1% permanent disability in a motor vehicle accident – High Court applied multiplier of 15, monthly income of ₹3,620 with 40% future prospects – Supreme Court affirmed multiplier and income but enhanced compensation under multiple heads – Held: Total compensation enhanced to ₹15,13,337/- from ₹7,48,883/- [Paras 3.3, 5.1, 5.4]

Assessment of Disability – Future Prospects – Court upheld High Court’s finding accepting 77.1% disability based on unopposed medical board certificate – Future prospects added at 40% in line with Pranay Sethi principles – Loss of future earning capacity assessed by applying disability percentage to enhanced notional income [Paras 3.2, 5.1]

Special Heads of Compensation – Pain and Suffering – Loss of Marriage Prospects – Medical Expenses – Applying Kajal v. Jagdish Chand, Sona (Minor), and other precedents, Supreme Court awarded ₹3,00,000 each towards pain and suffering and loss of marriage prospects – Also granted ₹40,000 for special diet and transport, ₹50,000 for future medical expenses, ₹40,000 for attendant charges – Held: Expenses beyond actual medical bills are permissible considering hospital stay and future treatment [Paras 5.2–5.3]

Tabular Summary of Compensation:

Loss of Future Earnings (with 77.1% disability): ₹7,03,337/-

Pain and Suffering: ₹3,00,000/-

Loss of Amenities: ₹80,000/-

Loss of Marriage Prospects: ₹3,00,000/-

Attendant Charges: ₹40,000/-

Special Diet and Transport: ₹40,000/-

Future Medical Expenses: ₹50,000/-

Total: ₹15,13,337/-

Interest and Directions – Additional Compensation – Supreme Court held appellant entitled to additional compensation of ₹7,64,454/- (i.e., over and above ₹5,75,883/- awarded by High Court) with 8% interest from date of application till realisation – Insurance company directed to deposit amount in appellant’s bank account within 8 weeks and file proof before Tribunal [Para 6–6.1]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of the High Court modified – Total compensation enhanced to ₹15,13,337/- with 8% interest – Additional ₹7,64,454/- to be paid by insurer within 8 weeks – Proof of payment to be submitted before Tribunal.