Insurance Claim – Validity of Survey Reports – Appellant challenged NCDRC's order to pay insurance claim, arguing multiple survey reports justified repudiation due to overload-induced collapse of the paddy boiling structure – Supreme Court upheld SCDRC's findings, rejecting NCDRC's conclusions on procedural delays in survey reports – Emphasized insurer's right to appoint multiple surveyors under valid reasons without mala fides [Paras 1-17].

Surveyors’ Reports – Appointment and Validity – Insurer initially appointed a surveyor for preliminary assessment, followed by structural expert and final surveyor – Supreme Court highlighted consistency in reports affirming structural overload as cause of collapse, and not collision as claimed by respondent – NCDRC's reliance on delay in survey report submission was misplaced [Paras 12-16].

Section 64-UM(2) of Insurance Act – Requirement for Survey Report – Court elucidated statutory mandate for licensed surveyor’s report before claim settlement – Found insurer complied with statutory requirements, justified in appointing multiple surveyors for comprehensive assessment [Paras 10-14].

Decision: Appeal allowed – NCDRC’s order set aside – Consumer complaint by respondent dismissed – Court recognized insurer’s compliance with legal and procedural standards in claim assessment and repudiation [Para 17].

Criminal Law – Unlawful Assembly and Murder – Appellants convicted for participating in an unlawful assembly that brutally beat the deceased, causing his death – Conviction based on consistent eyewitness testimonies and corroborative medical evidence – Supreme Court upheld conviction under Sections 147, 148, 302/149 IPC, emphasizing the intention to cause death and the merciless nature of the assault [Paras 1-24].

Witness Testimony – Consistency and Corroboration – Multiple eyewitnesses provided consistent accounts of the incident, identifying the appellants as part of the unlawful assembly – Court emphasized the reliability of such consistent testimonies, supported by medical evidence detailing the extent of injuries [Paras 15-20].

Evidence – Recovery of Weapons – Blood-stained weapons recovered from appellants, corroborating their participation in the assault – Supreme Court noted that such recovery, along with eyewitness accounts, reinforced the prosecution's case [Paras 21-24].

Section 149 IPC – Vicarious Liability – Court reaffirmed the principle that every member of an unlawful assembly is vicariously liable for the acts done in prosecution of the common object – No need to prove specific role of each member [Para 14].

Decision: Appeals partly allowed – Convictions of some appellants upheld, others acquitted on benefit of doubt – Supreme Court maintained that the brutal nature of the assault evidenced the intent to cause death, justifying convictions under Section 302/149 IPC [Para 26].

Land Acquisition – Enhancement of Compensation – Appellant challenged the award of compensation and interest from the date of the award rather than from the date of possession or notification – Supreme Court directed the Collector to examine if the land came under submergence in 1991 and determine the quantum of damages accordingly – Interest under Section 34 to be awarded from the date of notification if submergence occurred [Paras 1-16].

Interest on Compensation – Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act – Interest at 9% per annum for the first year from the date of possession, increasing to 15% per annum if not paid within one year – Court emphasized that interest under Section 34 is payable from the date of notification in cases of prior possession [Para 13].

Determination of Possession and Damages – Court noted the absence of clear evidence regarding the period of submergence and possession – Directed the Collector to ascertain the factual situation and determine damages from 1991 to the date of notification, and interest from the date of notification under Section 34 [Paras 15-16].

Decision: Appeal disposed of with directions to the Collector to examine the facts and determine the quantum of damages and interest as per the Land Acquisition Act [Para 16].

Retirement Age – Enhancement of Retirement Age – Appellant challenged the denial of extension of retirement age from 60 to 65 years as per notification dated 6 February 2015 – Supreme Court held that the notification is prospective and does not apply to those who had already attained the age of superannuation – The end of session benefit does not alter the date of superannuation [Paras 1-24].

Fundamental Rules and Special Orders – Application and Interpretation – Supreme Court found that the special order dated 6 February 2015 enhancing the retirement age to 65 years cannot be regarded as ultra vires but is prospective in nature – The appellant's extension until the end of the session under the GO dated 19 November 2012 does not entitle him to benefit from the increased retirement age [Paras 14-19].

Comparison with Regulation 21 of the Intermediate Education Act – Supreme Court distinguished the provisions and noted that Regulation 21 contains a deeming provision extending retirement to the end of the academic year, which is not present in the GO dated 19 November 2012 for medical teachers [Paras 20-22].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Appellant not entitled to enhanced age of retirement of 65 years – Terminal benefits to be computed and released within two months [Paras 23-24].

Payment of Gratuity – Definition of Employee – Appellant contended that service as a daily wager should be counted for gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 – High Court ruled provisions of the Act do not apply to individuals governed by other statutes, specifically the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 – Supreme Court noted conflicting decisions and referred the matter to a larger bench [Paras 1-7].

Service Rules and Gratuity – Conflicting Decisions – Supreme Court identified conflict between the decision in Netram Sahu vs. State of Chhattisgarh (2018) 5 SCC 430 and Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Jammu vs. Teja Singh (unreported) – Highlighted that the provisions of the 1976 Rules were not considered in Netram Sahu [Paras 4-6].

Referral to Larger Bench – Judicial Propriety – Due to conflicting decisions and to maintain judicial propriety, Supreme Court referred the issue to a larger bench for detailed examination and resolution [Para 7].

Decision: Issue referred to a larger bench for consideration – Registry directed to place the file before the Chief Justice for constitution of a larger bench [Para 7].

Juvenile Justice Act – Plea of Juvenility – Gang-rape-murder case – Petitioner claimed juvenility based on School Leaving Certificate – Application under Section 7A of the JJ Act – Supreme Court reiterated that once the plea of juvenility has been rejected by courts up to the Supreme Court, the plea cannot be reagitated by filing a fresh application – Petitioner’s plea had been previously rejected by the Metropolitan Magistrate, the High Court, and the Supreme Court – SLP dismissed [Paras 1-13].

Legal Precedents – Reference to previous orders – Claim of juvenility must be conclusively determined as per procedure – Petitioner’s age confirmed as above 18 years at the time of the offence in previous court orders – Fresh application barred after conclusive determination by the Supreme Court [Paras 6-11].

Decision: SLP dismissed – Earlier decisions by Metropolitan Magistrate, High Court, and Supreme Court upheld – Petitioner barred from reagitating juvenility claim under Section 7A of the JJ Act [Para 13].

Guardianship and Custody – Contact Rights – Courts should ensure that the parent denied custody of the child should have the right to communicate with the child for 5 to 10 minutes daily via video call or other means – This helps maintain and improve the bond between the child and the non-custodial parent, facilitating easier transitions during visits and vacations [Para 22].

Visitation Rights and Contact Rights – The child has a fundamental human right to love, affection, company, and protection from both parents, regardless of parental conflicts – Courts must provide clear guidelines on visitation rights to ensure the child does not lose social, physical, and psychological contact with either parent – Only in extreme circumstances should a parent be denied contact with the child, and reasons must be documented [Paras 20 and 22].

Welfare of the Child – Primary and paramount consideration in custody matters – Court must weigh all circumstances carefully to determine the best interest of the child, considering the need for contact with both parents – Factors such as age of the child, nationality, and previous court orders must be considered – In this case, shared custody arrangements and specific visitation rights were detailed to ensure both parents remain involved in the child's life [Paras 1-37].

Decision: Appeal allowed in part – Directions provided for custody arrangements, including provisions for daily video calls and biannual visits to India – Custody of the child determined with provisions for both parents’ involvement [Para 37].

Benami Transactions – Nature and Burden of Proof – Appellant contested the claim on the grounds that the money involved was part of a benami transaction, thus barred under Sections 3 and 4 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 – Court held that the plaintiff did not seek recovery based on a benami transaction nor claimed any property as benami – The burden of proving a transaction as benami lies on the person asserting it, which the appellant failed to do [Paras 17-18].

Loan Repayment – Evidentiary Support – Plaintiff alleged that the appellant had borrowed Rs. 80,000/- which was not repaid – Appellant contended the amount was returned the next day, a claim unsupported by evidence – High Court found in favor of the plaintiff, noting inconsistencies in the appellant's defense and affirming the existence of the loan with substantial evidence, including unreturned post-dated cheques and acknowledgment of receipt of money [Paras 14-16].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree of the High Court upheld – Appellant directed to pay Rs. 80,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. from 16.02.1990, failing which the interest rate will be 12% p.a. [Para 22].

Consumer Protection Act – Agricultural Debt Waiver – The appellants, categorized as 'small farmers', sought a full waiver of their loan under the Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008 – District Forum and State Commission ruled in favor of the appellants – NCDRC reversed the decision citing the non-inclusion of the appellants' district in Annexure-I of the Scheme – Supreme Court held that the appellants were entitled to a full waiver as per clause 5 of the Scheme which does not refer to Annexure-I – Appeals allowed, NCDRC order set aside [Paras 1-21].

Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008 – Clause 5 and Clause 6 – Distinction between debt waiver for small and marginal farmers under clause 5 and one-time settlement for other farmers under clause 6 – Explanation of the definitions and applicability of Annexure-I – Appellants' entitlement confirmed under clause 5 for a full waiver as small farmers, without reference to Annexure-I [Paras 10-19].

Decision: Appeal allowed – NCDRC judgment set aside – District Forum's order directing loan waiver restored – Appellants awarded costs of Rs. 50,000 [Para 21].