LAW OFFICE ONLINE

Evidence Act, 1872; S. 165 – Right of Court to put question – Held: Court has a right to ask the party even relevant or irrelevant questions and the parties or their counsel cannot raise any objection to any such question.

Consumer Protection Act, 1986; After purchase an overseas travel insurance policy the Petitioner was underwent Coronary Bypass Graft Surgery and thereby spent 12,005 pounds -- Respondent repudiated the reimbursement and taken plea that the complainant have past medical history of hypercholestremia, Ischaemic Heart Disease as well as hypertension, which were excluded as per the insurance contract -- District Forum directed the Company to pay an amount of Rs.7,19,500/- for medical score with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of complaint till the date of payment and also to pay Rs.2200/as litigation expenses.” -- State Commission allowed the same on appeal on the ground that complainant had obtained insurance policy by concealing the factum of his previous ailment, namely, hypertension, which has a nexus with the heart problem -- Revision allowed by NCDRC in favour of Claimant with observation that plea of concealment of material fact was not taken by the opposite party in the repudiation letter -- no evidence shown that the petitioner despite of having knowledge of his ailment concealed this fact in proposal form -- having history of hypertension does not lead to conclusion that petitioner was also having previous history of heart problem – heart problem cannot be termed as a claim in respect of a pre existing disease.

Evidence Act, 1872; S. 27 – Confessional statement -- Applicable only if the confessional statement leads to the discovery of some new fact – The material objects which the police is claimed to have recovered from the accused may well have been planted by the police, the bench said -- the settled legal proposition that Section 27 of the Evidence Act is applicable only if the confessional statement leads to the discovery of some new fact while setting aside the conviction in a murder case

Code of Criminal Procedure, S. 125, 126; ------- Territorial Jurisdiction to file case for maintenance ------- Regarding the place of institution and adjudication of the maintenance proceeding, it is indicated therein that such proceeding can be taken against any person in any district, inter alia, where the wife resides ---
-- The word ‘reside’ means to live or to have a dwelling place or an abode and is not equivalent to something in the nature of having a domicile in a particular
place or having a place as the place of origin or the place where the family used to live ----- The words ‘where he or his wife resides’ in section 126(1)(b) of the
Code has been interpreted to mean not only domicile in the technical sense of that word but also something more than a flying visit to or a casual stay in a particular place contemplating animus manendi or an intention to stay for a period. The length of the period is dependent upon the circumstances of each case ------ Thus a person ‘resides’ in a place if he/she through choice makes it his/her abode permanently or temporarily and whether he/she has chosen to make a particular place his/her abode or not depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case ----- The territorial jurisdiction is to be determined on the date of filing the application. Even if the wife resides at a place temporarily on the date of filing of the application under section 125 Cr.P.C., the concerned Court within whose territorial jurisdiction she is residing, can entertain such application. (Para 7);

Evidence Act, 1972 – Appreciation of Evidence – Behaviour of witnesses – Held: the reactions of these witnesses in running away from the site of occurrence appears to be a natural human reaction under the facts and circumstances of the case. Behaviour of the witnesses or their reactions would differ from situation to situation and individual to individual. Expecting uniformity in their reactions would be unrealistic, and no hard and fast rule can be laid down as to the uniformity of the human reaction. The evidence of the three eyewitnesses cannot be faulted merely because they ran away;

Maxim -- Falsus In Uno, Falsus In Omnibus -- (false in one thing, false in everything) is not being used in India. Virtually, it is not applicable to the Indian scenario. Hence, the said maxim is treated as neither a sound rule of law nor a rule of practice in India. Hardly, one comes across a witness whose evidence does not contain a grain of untruth or at any rate exaggerations, embroideries or embellishments. It is the duty of the Court to scrutinise the evidence carefully and, in terms of felicitous metaphor, separate the grain from the chaff. But, it cannot obviously disbelieve the substratum of the prosecution case or the material parts of the evidence and reconstruct a story of its own out of the rest. Efforts should be made to find the truth. This is the very object for which Courts are created. To search it out, the Court has to disperse the suspicious cloud and dust out the smear of dust, as all these things clog the very truth. So long as chaff, cloud and dust remain, the criminals are clothed with this protective layer to receive the benefit of doubt. So, it is a solemn duty of the Courts, not to merely conclude and leave the case the moment suspicions are created. It is the onerous duty of the Court, within permissible limits to find out the truth. It means, on one hand that no innocent man should be punished, but on the other hand to see no person committing an offence should go scot free. If in spite of such effort suspicion is not dissolved, it remains writ at large, benefit of doubt has to be credited to the accused. The evidence is to be considered from the point of view of trustworthiness and once the same stands satisfied, it ought to inspire confidence in the mind of the Court to accept the evidence.

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; O. 7 R. 11 (d) -- Rejection of Plaint -- the has to be read as a whole -- The defence available to the defendants or the plea taken by them in the written statement or any application filed by them, cannot be the basis to decide the application under Order VII Rule 11(d) -- Only the averments in the plaint are germane -- The issue regarding the suit being barred by limitation in the facts of the present case, is a triable issue and for which reason the plaint cannot be rejected at the threshold in exercise of the power under Order VII Rule 11(d).

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; S. 166 -- As to whether the owner has taken reasonable care to find out as to whether the driving licence produced by the driver (a fake one or otherwise), does not fulfil the requirements of law or not will have to be determined in each case.

Consumer Protection Act, 1986; Force Majeure -- Complaint against developer for delayed possession – Developer took the plea of Force Majeure on the ground that Authority failed to supply electricity in time – Documents revealed that the Developer made payment to Authority for electric at a much later date -- The plea of Force Majeure circumstances does not stand – Award for registration in favour of the complainant along the penal interest and compensation.

Consumer Protection Act, 1986; S.24A – Limitation to lodge consumer complaint – Delay of more than two years since arising of cause of action – Held: after accepting almost the entire consideration amount it is bounden duty on the part of developer/builder to deliver possession and to execute the sale deed and unless it is done, the cause of action is a continuous one.

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; S. 13 – Divorce on the ground of cruelty against wife – Wife attempted to commit suicide by pouring kerosene without any reason – Observed that no husband would ever be comfortable with or tolerate such an act by his wife and if the wife succeeds in committing suicide, then one can imagine how a poor husband would get entangled into the clutches of law, which would virtually ruin his sanity, peace of mind, career and probably his entire life -- The mere idea with regard to facing legal consequences would put a husband under tremendous stress – Held: Only this one event was sufficient for the Appellant husband to get a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty;

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; S. 13 –; Wife’s claim to get separated from her in laws and to live separately with husband -- Observed that In India, generally people do not subscribe to the western thought, where, upon getting married or attaining majority, the son gets separated from the family – A wife is expected to be with the family of the husband after the marriage -- No husband would tolerate this and no son would like to be separated from his old parents and other family members, who are also dependent upon his income – Held: The persistent effort of the Respondent wife to constrain the Appellant to be separated from the family would be torturous for the husband;

Indian Succession Act, 1925; Ss. 281, 282 -- Whether execution of will in English can be doubted on ground that testator was not knowing English language ----- Held: The lack of knowledge of English even if can be attributed to the testator would not fundamentally alter the 14 Page 15 situation inasmuch as before registration of the Will the contents thereof can be understood to have been explained to the testator or ascertained from her by the Sub Registrar, who had deposed that such a practice is normally adhered to.

Indian Succession Act, 1925; -- Loss of original Will ----- Held: The stand of the plaintiff that the original Will was lost while in the custody of her mother and her knowledge of such loss on the day of her mother’s death cannot be disbelieved merely because no report in this regard was lodged before the police.