w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Rajendra v/s Vikas & Others


Company & Directors' Information:- VIKAS R & D INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U73100DL2012PTC232875

Company & Directors' Information:- RAJENDRA LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U99999KA1943PLC000306

Company & Directors' Information:- VIKAS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U99999MH1949PTC007334

Company & Directors' Information:- RAJENDRA CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U17219TZ1948PTC000161

    First Appeal No. 930 of 2011

    Decided On, 29 July 2019

    At, In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad

    By, THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE VIBHA KANKANWADI

    For the Appellant: S.S. Manale, Advocate. For the Respondent: R4, Dhananjay Deshpande, Advocate.



Judgment Text

1. Present Appellant had filed claim petition for getting compensation under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 bearing Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 28/2008 before the Ex- Officio Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Latur. The said petition was partly allowed with proportionate cost. It was held that the original respondents No. 1 and 2 are liable to pay compensation to the extent of 20 % and the respondents No. 3 and 4 were held to pay 80 % of the total amount of compensation i.e. Rs. 3,13,000/-. The present Appeal has been filed by the original claimant for enhancement.

2. The factual matrix leading to the Appeal are that the Appellant/Original Claimant was 30 year old tailor, carrying on his business under the name and style “ Raj Tailors” and was earning Rs. 5,000/- per month. He was travelling in a jeep bearing registration No. MH 24/F 3235 on 22.06.2007 from Lamjana to Killari. Respondent No. 3 was driving the said jeep in a rash and negligent manner. When it reached near Mogarga Pati, a Tempo bearing No. MH 24/A-2831 driven by respondent No. 1 came in opposition direction in a rash and negligent manner. Both the drivers had lost control and collided with each other, as result of which the claimant sustained grievous injury. He was initially taken to Rural Hospital, Killari and then shifted to another hospital at Latur. Though he has taken treatment, yet, his injuries have turned into permanent physical disability for him and he cannot do any kind of work now. Therefore, compensation was claimed from respondents No. 1 to 4. Respondent No. 4 was the Insurance Company of Tempo.

3. Respondent No. 1 filed written statement, so also, the other respondents also filed their separate written statements. All of them have denied the averments in respect of the negligence. Respondent No. 1 contended that the accident took place due to the negligence on the part of respondent No. 3, whereas respondent No. 3 contended that the accident took place due to the negligence of respondent No.1. The Insurance Company of Tata Tempo had taken statutory defence also.

4. Taking into consideration the evidence on record and hearing all the parties, the learned Tribunal has held that claimant had sustained injuries and permanent disability in the said vehicular accident. It was held that it was the negligence to the extent of 80 % of the jeep driver i.e. Respondent No. 3, and 20% was that of respondent No. 1. As aforesaid, total amount of Rs. 3,13,000/- has been granted as compensation. It has also been held that the Insurance Company has failed to prove breach of terms of Policy, and therefore, the Insurance Company is jointly and severally liable to pay compensation with respondent No. 3.

5. It has been vehemently submitted on behalf of the Appellant that evidence has been laid by the claimant to prove that he has suffered head injury. Initially, the certificate of disability issued by the treating Doctor was showing 15 % disability and it is at Exhibit - 56. At that time, the claimant was examined on 19.12.2007. Thereafter, once again, he was assessed for disability during the pendency of the petition. His disability was re-evaluated on 9th July, 2009, and it has been held that his disability is to the extent of 40 %. In order to prove the said certificates, claimant examined CW1, Dr. Ashok Kukade, who has in clear terms stated that claimant is unable to do his daily activities. It had come on record by evidence of CW2 and CW3 that claimant was doing business as tailor. Under such circumstance, he is totally unable to do any work though his permanent physical disability was to the extent of 40 %, yet, he has suffered 100 % financial loss. The learned Tribunal has erred in taking income of the claimant @ Rs. 3,000/- per month, when in fact, he ought to have been considered as skilled labour. No proper amount has been given under the head of Pain and Sufferings and Disability. A very meagre amount has been granted as compensation which definitely requires enhancement.

6. Per contra, the learned Advocate Mr. Dhananjay Deshpande appearing for respondent No. 4 submitted that the learned Tribunal has assessed the evidence properly. In fact, there was no necessity for re-evaluation of the disability during the pendency of the petition. The intention is very much clear. The claimant intended to get more compensation, and therefore, the subsequent so-called re-evaluation has been done. In his cross-examination, CW1 Dr. Kukade has clearly stated that at the time of discharge on 09.08.2007, the claimant was found fit enough, then the question arises, as to how his percentage of disability would have increased. The treating Doctor has also stated that after the discharge and before 29.04.2009 i.e. issuance of re-evaluation certificate, he was not knowing the status of claimant, and therefore, due to another injury, claimant may cause post head injury. Under such circumstance, whatever computation of compensation has been made by the learned Tribunal, is correct. Claimant claims that he was doing tailoring business and at that time, we should bear it in mind that the claimant is residing at village Killari, how far he could have got orders to stitch cloths in a rural area is required to be considered.

7. Important point to be noted is that none of the respondents have filed any appeal challenging the findings of the learned Tribunal, which have gone against them. Under such circumstance, the scope of this appeal is very much limited. In spite of notice to other respondents, they have failed to appear in this appeal. Therefore, taking into consideration the scope of the appeal and the points, those have been submitted, following points arise for determination, findings and reasons for the same are as follows:-

(i) Whether the learned Tribunal erred in holding functional disability as well as financial disability to the extent of 40 % only?

(ii) Whether the learned Tribunal was justified in awarding compensation of Rs. 3,13,000/- only?

8. Here in this case, the claimant himself has not entered the witness box. However, he has laid evidence through other witnesses in order to bring on record his occupation, income and disability. The learned Tribunal has held that the claimant has proved that he has sustained permanent disability to the extent of 40 %. This decision was based on the evidence of CW1, Dr. Kukade and the certificates issued by him at Exhibits 56 and 57. In other words, the learned Tribunal did not find any fault in respect of certificates Exhibits 56 and 57, especially, Exhibit 57, though it was issued during the pendency of the petition for revaluation. The Insurance Company cannot now challenge into (without filing an appeal or cross objection) that the disability of claimant was less than 40 %. Therefore, taking into consideration the permanent physical disability as certified by the treating Doctor, we are required to consider as to whether it has turned into 100 % financial loss to the claimant. In his examination-in-chief, CW1, Dr. Kukade has specifically stated that disability caused to the claimant is due to delayed post head injuries effect. When he had examined claimant for Exhibit - 57, he found that the claimant was unable to communicate, he had gross loss of memory with irrelevancy. He also found that the claimant had gross cerebral disfunction, amnesia, irrelevance and unable to answer any question. Therefore, he got the MRI examination of the claimant done. After MRI, he found that there is cerebral atrophy and demyelination i.e. loss of conduction fibres. Further, he has stated that the claimant is unable for sexual intercourse, and he is unable to do his daily activity. Thus, in clear terms, he has stated that claimant will not be able to do any work as before. Except the denials in cross, there is nothing. There is no reason to disbelieve the treating Doctor. Under such circumstance, the learned Tribunal erred in holding that there is only 40 % loss of earning capacity of the claimant.

9. Now, turning towards the quantum, the claimant had contended that he was earning Rs. 5,000/- per month prior to the accident. He has examined CW3 Mohan Sonwane, who has photo shop adjacent to the tailoring shop of the claimant. At the most, it can be said that from his testimony, it had come on record that claimant was running tailoring business in the name and style as “Raj Tailors”. CW4 Satish Pawar is the real brother of the claimant, who is now running the said shop. Though, he has stated that his brother was earning Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- per month, except bare words, there is nothing. Though, he has stated that he is running the said shop, he is not giving any earning to his brother. In cross-examination, he admitted that he is keeping accounts of his business, but he has not produced it on record. It could have given a idea as to how much income he is deriving from the business. Thus, except the bare words, there is nothing is on record to show that claimant was earning Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- per month. Learned Tribunal was justified in invoking notional income theory. Learned Advocate for Appellant submits that claimant should have been considered as skilled labour. But at the same time, he relied on decision of this Court in Tukaram Baliram Jagtap Vs. Babasaheb Rajaram Garad and others (First Appeal No. 4323 of 2008 decided on 27.10.2015). In this case, the claimant was a practicing lawyer, yet, this Court had taken his income at Rs. 3,000/- per month, taking into consideration the fact that in evidence, it was suggested that his earnings are Rs. 5,000/- per month. Under this circumstance, the income of claimant will have to be considered @ Rs. 3,000/- per month. There is substance in the submission on behalf of respondent No. 4 that claimant running the said business in village Killari that too in the year 2008 is required to be considered while invoking the notional income theory.

10. Further, in view of the decision in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. 2017 SCC Online SC 1270, the claimant being self-employed aged 30, 40 % of the income is required to be added towards future prospects. That amount comes to Rs. 1,200/- per month (40 % of Rs.3,000/- per month). After adding the future prospects, the income of the claimant would come to Rs. 4,200/- per month, yearly it would be Rs. 50,400 (Rs. 4,200/- p.m. X 12 months). Taking into consideration, the fact that he is unable to work at all now i.e. 100 % financial loss, his compensation is computed on this basis, and there is no question of deduction of any amount towards the personal expenditure. Further, in view of the decision in Sarla Varma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121, and the age of the claimant as 30, the just multiplier in this case would be “17”. After applying the multiplier, the total loss of income for the claimant would be Rs. 8,56,800/-.

11. The medical bills, those have been proved by the claimant and which have been directed to be reimbursed by the Tribunal are to the extent of Rs.85,000/- (Exhibits 59 to 68) and Rs. 35,000/- (Exhibits 70 to 114). These amounts are required to be awarded.

12. Further taking into consideration, the evidence of CW1, Dr. Kukade quoted above, amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- is awarded towards the Pain and Sufferings and this is in view of the decision by the Apex Court in G. Ravindranath @ R. Chowdary Vs. E. Srinivas and Anr. 2013 AIR (SCW) 4867. Almost similar view has been taken and more amounts have been awarded towards Pain and Sufferings in Mohan Soni Vs. Ram Avtar Tomar and Ors. 2012 ACJ 583, Lal Singh Marabi Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and Ors. (2017) 5 Supreme Court Cases 82, so also, Tukaram Jagtap's case (supra). Further amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- is awarded towards loss of amenities and Rs. 1,00,000/- is awarded towards loss of expectation of life. Taking into consideration the fact that the claimant has now lost his memory and would be required to depend upon his family members for all the activities. Further amount of Rs. 23,200/- is awarded towards attendance and travelling expenses, taking into consideration the fact that the claimant is resident of Killari and had taken treatment for a considerable period at Latur. Thus, the claimant is entitled to get compensation of Rs. 15,00,000/- inclusive of amount under 'No Fault Liability'. Though, the claimant has calculated the compensation to the extent of Rs. 12,30,000/- yet, this Court is duty bound to award just compensation. The compensation more than claimed, need not be rejected on the ground that there is deficit

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

Court Fee. The deficit Court Fee can be recovered from the claimant. 13. For the aforesaid reasons, the following order is passed:- (I) The Appeal is allowed. (II) The Award passed by the Tribunal is set aside and modified as under:-. (A) It is held that the Appellant/Claimant is entitled to get compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Only) (inclusive of amount of Rs. 25,000/- awarded under 'No Fault Liability' ). The said amount is to be paid together with interest @ 7 % per annum from the date of petition till actual realization of entire amount. (B) The above said amount should be paid by respondents No. 1 and 2 to the extent of 20 % of the entire decreetal amount and by respondents No. 3 and 4 to the extent of 80 % of the entire decreetal amount, jointly and severally. (C) The amount already paid shall be adjusted as on date. (D) On realization of the amount of Rs. 7,00,000/- be deposited in Fixed Deposit Receipt in the name of claimant in any Nationalized Bank for the period of five years, and after the period of maturity, the entire amount be paid to him without waiting for orders from the Tribunal/Court. (E) Rest of the amount be given to the claimant by Account Payee Cheque. (F) No order as to costs. (G) The deficit Court Fee to be paid by the appellant within a of one month.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

06-10-2020 Rajendra Eknath Apugade & Another Versus The State of Maharashtra & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
22-09-2020 Gramin Yuvak Vikas Shikshan Mandal, Kinhi Naik & Another Versus Shivnarayan Datta Raut & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
07-09-2020 Bitu Yadav @ Vikas Yadav Versus State (NCT of Delhi) & Another High Court of Delhi
31-08-2020 Rajendra Singh Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Delhi
26-08-2020 Vikas Gupta Versus State & Others High Court of Delhi
24-08-2020 M/s. Govindhji Jewat & Co., Represented by its Partner Rajendra Kone & Others Versus M/s. Rukmani Mills Ltd., Represented by its Board of Directors, Madurai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
11-08-2020 Atalbiharikumar Rajendra Mandal Versus State of Gujarat High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
31-07-2020 New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Thru. Manager Versus Dr. Vikas Sethi & Others High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
23-07-2020 Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., through its Authorized signatory, Pravin Prabhakar Prabhu Versus Kameshwari Rajendra Sabnis & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
16-07-2020 Vikas & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through its Principal Secretary, Maharashtra State Transport Department & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
09-07-2020 New Nagpur Mahila Gramin Vikas Credit Co-Operative Society Ltd. & Another Versus Suman Balaji Thakre National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
30-06-2020 Union Bank of India, Through Shri R. Rajendra Prasad, Branch Manager, Raichur Versus M/s. Tirumala Enterprises, Raichur National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
18-06-2020 Rajendra Singh & Others Versus National Insurance Company Limited & Others Supreme Court of India
26-05-2020 Rajendra Kumar & Others Versus Raj Kumar High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
19-05-2020 Transport Manager, Thane Municipal Transport Undertaking Versus Rajendra Visanji Thakkar & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
14-05-2020 Rajendra Kumar Chandrol Versus High Court of Madhya Pradesh
06-05-2020 CLP India Private Limited Versus Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. & Another Supreme Court of India
21-04-2020 Babu Rajendra Versus Basalingappa & Others High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench OF Kalaburagi
20-03-2020 Prem Devi Versus Delhi Development Authority Through Its Vice Chairman Vikas Sadan, New Delhi National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
18-03-2020 State of M.P. & Others Versus Rajendra Kumar Sharma High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Gwailor
18-03-2020 Raj Kumar Versus Delhi Development Authority Vikas Sadan Near Ina Market New Delhi National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
18-03-2020 Ritesh Rajendra Thakur Versus State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, Tribal Development Department & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
17-03-2020 Rajendra & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
17-03-2020 U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad & Another Versus Mohan Swaroop Saxena National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
16-03-2020 Satish Kumar Khandelwal V/S Rajendra Jain & Others High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Indore
12-03-2020 Rajendra & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
05-03-2020 Vikrant Vikas Raikar, Proprietor of M/s. Elegant Constructions Versus State of Maharashtra, through Government Pleader & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
02-03-2020 Vikas Aggarwal Versus Bal Krishna Gupta & Others High Court of Delhi
24-02-2020 Manaj Tollway Private Limited Versus Rajendra Rahane Superintending Engineer & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
19-02-2020 Rajendra K. Bhutta Versus Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority & Another Supreme Court of India
18-02-2020 M/s. Girdhari Lal Constructions (P) Ltd. Dwaraka, New Delhi, Registered Office Bhatinda, Punjab, Represented by Its Director, Vikas Mehta Versus Union of India, Represented by Its Secretary, Ministry of Housing & Urban Affairs, New Delhi & Others High Court of Kerala
13-02-2020 Vikas Panchayat, Gram Boheda Through Sarpanch, Rajasthan Versus Badri Lal & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
13-02-2020 Life Insurance Corporation of India Through Its Zonal Manager, Life Insurance Corporation Of India, New Delhi Versus Rajendra Sudamrao Shinde & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
12-02-2020 BVSR-KVR (Joint Ventures) Versus Rail Vikas Nigam Ltd. High Court of Delhi
11-02-2020 Nisar Ahmad Versus Rajendra Kumar Soni & Others High Court of Delhi
10-02-2020 Rajendra Versus Jugalkishor & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
03-02-2020 Vikas Vidyalaya, Ranchi Versus State of Jharkhand High Court of Jharkhand
29-01-2020 Vikas Versus State (NCT) of Delhi High Court of Delhi
17-01-2020 Sanjiv Rajendra Bhatt Thro Shweta Sanjiv Bhatt Versus State of Rajasthan High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
17-01-2020 Rajendra Mishra Versus State of Bihar & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
17-01-2020 Rajendra Saxena & Another Versus Sharda Ratnam & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
16-01-2020 Rajendra Kumar Verma & Another Versus Dolly Rani Bag & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
10-01-2020 Harendra Ramchandra Pathak Versus Rajendra Ratan Mhatre High Court of Judicature at Bombay
06-01-2020 Dr. N. Rajendra Prasad & Others Versus Lingampally Srinivas & Others Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Hyderabad
06-01-2020 Rajendra Kumar Khera & Others Versus U.P. Awas Vikas Parishad & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
26-12-2019 Rajendra Manohar Kowli & Another Versus Bank of India Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal At Mumbai
26-12-2019 Rajendra Girdhar Patel Versus State Of Gujarat & Others High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
16-12-2019 Vikas Luthra Versus Unitech Limited & Others Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi
10-12-2019 Rajendra Diwan Versus Pradeep Kumar Ranibala & Another Supreme Court of India
06-12-2019 The Managing Trustee, Sharada Vikas Trust, Banglore & Another Versus P. Raghukumar Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
06-12-2019 Managing Director, Uttar Pradesh Sahkari Gram Vikas Bank Limited Lucknow & Another Versus Chandra Bhan Singh (Dead) & Others Supreme Court of India
03-12-2019 Rajendra Singh Tomar & Others Versus State of Uttarakhand Through Secretary & Others Supreme Court of India
02-12-2019 Sathi Khurana Versus Rajendra Singh Khurana High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
02-12-2019 Ajit Rajendra Bhagwat & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Higher and Technical Education Mantralaya & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
28-11-2019 Balasaheb Govind Basugade Versus Rajendra Shivaji Kumthekar & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
20-11-2019 Jaihind Sahakari Pani Purvatha Mandali Ltd. Shirdhon, Kolhapur Versus Rajendra Bandu Khot & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
04-11-2019 Sahkari Ganna Vikas Samiti Versus Sub-Postmaster & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
02-11-2019 Rajendra Prasad Versus Sikkim University & Others High Court of Sikkim
01-11-2019 Shalini Tripathi Versus U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
25-10-2019 K. Rajendra Prasad & Others Versus State of Andhra Pradesh & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
23-10-2019 M/s. Brijwasi Infratech Pvt. Ltd. Versus Vikas Jain High Court of Delhi
18-10-2019 Rajendra Agrawal Versus State of Bihar & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
11-10-2019 New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Versus Rajendra Kumar & Another Madya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Bhopal
25-09-2019 Kalpana Rajendra Kothari & Others Versus Santosh Arvind Jangam & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
23-09-2019 Gram Vikas Education Society, Through its Secretary Versus University Grants Commission, Through its Secretary & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
11-09-2019 Krushna Shivaji Patil Versus Parmanand Rajendra Patil & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
05-09-2019 M/s. Sugesan Transport Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Director, Kanthibai Rajendra Sheth Versus M/s. E.C. Bose & Company Private Limited, Kolkata & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-09-2019 Raju @ Rajendra Versus State of U.P. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
03-09-2019 Vikas & Others Versus State of Haryana High Court of Punjab and Haryana
16-08-2019 Rajendra Mahadeorao Chaudhary Versus Gajanan Keshavrao Bore In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
09-08-2019 Wainganga Bahuuddeshiya Vikas Sanstha Through President B.B. Karanjekar & Others Versus Ku. Jaya & Others Supreme Court of India
06-08-2019 Rajendra Pandit Versus Union of India, Through the Secretary Ministry of Communication, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
06-08-2019 Rajendra Kumar Goyal & Another Versus South City Project (Kolkata) Ltd. & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
05-08-2019 Rajendra Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
02-08-2019 Vikas Kasliwal Versus Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd & Another Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal At Mumbai
30-07-2019 N. Rajendra Reddy Versus The Block Development Officer, Sholingur Panchayat Union, Vellore District & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
29-07-2019 Rajendra Versus Gopinath In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
26-07-2019 Rajendra Agarwal & Others Versus State of U.P. & Another High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
24-07-2019 Vikas Gopi Bhagat V/S Shivdas Pednekar and Others. High Court of Bombay Goa Bench
24-07-2019 Vikas Gopi Bhagat Versus Shivdas Pednekar & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
22-07-2019 Rajendra Prasad Sharma Versus M/s. Hartin Harris Ltd. High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
18-07-2019 Sujan Bhabani Prasad Chatterjee & Another Versus Rajendra Kumar Singh & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
17-07-2019 Sahkari Ganna Vikas Samiti & Another Versus M/s. Rai Bahadur Narain Singh Sugar Mill Ltd. & Others High Court of Uttarakhand
12-07-2019 Faisal Versus Vikas Chacko High Court of Kerala
12-07-2019 Faisal Versus Vikas Chacko High Court of Kerala
11-07-2019 U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Lucknow Throu. Chairman & Others Versus Harphool Singh High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
08-07-2019 C. Rajendra Prasad Versus The Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority, Rep. by its Member Secretary, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
08-07-2019 Union of India, Represented by The Secretary to The Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi & Others Versus K. Vikas High Court of Kerala
05-07-2019 Rajendra Versus The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, Tribal Development & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
04-07-2019 Rajendra Kumar through Nisar Mohammad Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh High Court of Madhya Pradesh
01-07-2019 Rajendra Shivsing Chanda & Others Versus Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
19-06-2019 Sangita & Others Versus Vikas Pramod Kale & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
19-06-2019 Delhi Development Authority Vikas Sdan. Ina. New Delhi Versus Shobhit Gupta National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
17-06-2019 Rajendra Kumar Versus The State of Bihar & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
30-05-2019 Ambika Vikas Udyog Versus Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Delhi Zonal Unit & Another High Court of Delhi
29-05-2019 Housing Commissioner UP Avas Vikas Parishad & Others Versus Shiv Charan Sagar National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
29-05-2019 Vikas Nissar Ganai Versus State of Jammu & Kashmir & Others High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
23-05-2019 Vikas Jishtu Versus Sumant Gautam & Another High Court of Himachal Pradesh
17-05-2019 Vikas Bhutani Versus State & Another High Court of Delhi
09-05-2019 Khetri Vikas Samiti Versus Director College Education, Government of Rajasthan & Others Supreme Court of India