Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

Smt. Promila vs Shri Jitender Kumar on 18 February, 2013

          IN THE COURT OF SHRI ARUN BHARDWAJ
 PRESIDING OFFICER: MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL­II, 
               DWARKA COURTS: NEW DELHI


MACT No. 175/11/09


IN THE MATTER OF :­  

Smt. Promila,
W/o Shri Ram Swaroop,
R/o B­322, Rama Park, 
Mohan Garden, 
Uttam Nagar,
New Delhi.
                                                                                    ... Petitioner
                                                   Versus


1. Shri Jitender Kumar,     (Driver)
     S/o Shri Ram Vraksh,
     R/o RZ­20, Roshan Garden ­II,
     Najafgarh, 
     New Delhi ­  110 043.

2. Shri Manoj Kumar,          (Owner)
     S/o Shri Bhoop Singh,
     R/o H. No. 701, Dichaon Kalan,
     New Delhi. 

3. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.,                                         (Insurer)
    19, Reliance Centre,
    Lal Chand Hira Chand Marg,
    Ballard Estate, 
    Mumbai - 400 001.
                                                                                          ... Respondents



MACT No. 175/11/09                   Smt. Promila Vs.  Shri Jitender Kumar & Ors.                              Page 1  of  19 
 Filed on                    :        26.10.2009
Reserved on                 :        11.02.2013
Decided on                  :        18.02.2013

J U D G M E N T:

­

1. This is a claim petition filed under Section 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

2. Respondent No. 1 is the Driver, Respondent No. 2 is Owner and Respondent No. 3 is the Insurer of the Offending Vehicle.

3. It is stated in this claim petition that on 25.07.2009, the petitioner was returning from Suraj Vihar, Kakrola and was going to Sewak Park. While she was crossing the road for going to Dwarka, suddenly, Respondent No. 1 came from the side of Dwarka Police Post, on a red coloured motorcycle, at a fast speed and in a careless manner hit the petitioner when she was climbing the divider / footpath. As a result of this, the petitioner fell down on the road and suffered multiple grievous injuries.

4. It is stated that the petitioner had noted the registration number of the said motorcycle. PCR came to the spot and took the petitioner to the DDU Hospital.

5. It is stated that P.S. South­West Delhi was registered FIR No. 331/09 under Section 279/337 of IPC against Respondent No. 1.

6. It is stated that MLC No. 14707/09 was prepared by the treating doctors. Petitioner has stated that she was aged 60 years Social Worker working for Dalit Adhikar Centre and was earning Rs. 6,000/­ per month.

7. In these circumstances, petitioner claimed a compensation of Rs.5,36,000/­ with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of accident i.e. 25.07.2009 till its realization.

8. A common written statement was filed on behalf of Respondent No. 1 and 2 stating therein that there is no proof of salary of Rs. 6,000/­ per month earned by the petitioner.

9. It was stated that on 25.07.2009, at about 12:45 p.m., the petitioner suddenly tried to cross the divider fencing through a hole made unauthorizedly in the permanent concrete fencing erected to check accidents and allow undisturbed flow of traffic. There were three feet tall plants from which she crossed the divider fencing and her movement was not visible to the driver coming from Dwarka Police Post and going towards Dwarka Mor. There was no zebra crossing for the pedestrians from which she could walk through. Respondent No. 1 was driving the motorcycle in his lane, at optimum speed, as per traffic rules and was not driving rashly and negligently. The collision between the motorcycle and petitioner took place due to negligence of the petitioner herself.

10. It is also stated that the compensation claimed is neither reasonable nor factual. Rest of the contents of claim petition were also denied and it was prayed that the claim petition be dismissed.

11. Insurance company also filed its written statement stating therein that alleged offending vehicle bearing No. DL­4SNB­4070 was not insured with the answering respondent. Copy of Cover Note No. 109000412604 which has been supplied to MACT No. 175/11/09 Smt. Promila Vs. Shri Jitender Kumar & Ors. Page 3 of 19 the answering respondent is false and fabricated document and has not been issued by the answering respondent.

12. It is further stated that the alleged Cover Note was never issued by answering respondent. Original Cover Note bearing No. 109000412604 as well as its three copies, which were prepared simultaneously, are lying with it and have not been issued to any one so far.

13. It is further sated that though Cover Note No. 109000412604 was duly filled to be issued in the name of one Shri Gagandeep Singh Arora in respect of Vehicle bearing No. DL­2CP­6996, but ultimately it was not issued and remained lying in the records of the answering respondent.

14. Therefore, it was stated that as the alleged offending vehicle was not insured by the answering respondent, it is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner. Therefore, it was prayed that the claim petition be dismissed.

15. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed: ­

1. Whether the petitioner received injuries in an accident on 25.07.2009 caused by respondent no.1, while driving motorcycle bearing No. DL­4NSB­4070 rashly and negligently? OPP

2. Whether the offending vehicle was insured by insurance company? OPP

3. Whether the Cover Note relied upon by the petitioner is forged and fabricated? OPR3

4. If yes, what is the amount of compensation which the claimant is entitled to receive and MACT No. 175/11/09 Smt. Promila Vs. Shri Jitender Kumar & Ors. Page 4 of 19 from which respondent?

5. Relief.

16. Petitioner entered in the witness box as PW1 and stated similar facts in her evidence by way of affidavit as were already stated by her in her claim petition. Photographs of the petitioner after the accident and receipts for purchase of medicines were proved as Ex. PW1/1 and Ex. PW1/2 respectively.

17. In cross­examination, she deposed that she is 74 years of age; she has suffered loss of memory due to accident; there was no zebra crossing at the place of accident; there was no cemented jali from where she was trying to cross the road; she is working as Social Worker at Jaipur where she works for 15 days and she was given a salary of Rs. 6,000/­ per month and sometimes, salary was given by cheques and sometimes by cash.

18. Respondent No. 2 entered in the witness box as R2W1 and filed his evidence by way of affidavit stating therein that he had got the motorcycle insured through one Shri Punit Kumar Makhija, an authorized insurance agent of Reliance General Insurance Company after making payment in cash. This information is recorded in the Cover Note bearing No. 1090004122604 issued to him by the said Mr. Punit Kumar Makhija.

19. Therefore, he deposed that his motorcycle is validly insured by the insurance company through its authorized agent. He did not receive any notice for cancellation of Cover Note issued to him from insurance company.

20. In cross­examination by counsel for insurance company, R2W1 deposed that he had given Rs. 951/­ for insurance of the vehicle to one Shri Vinod who was working for Shri Punit Kumar Makhija. He had called up the said agent several times for insurance policy but he kept on postponing for one reason or the other. He deposed that he received a phone call from Shri Punit Kumar Makhija who was running a DSA Firm for the insurance company and Shri Vinod was sent by Shri Punit Kumar Makhija to Respondent No. 2. He denied a suggestion that he did not make any payment of premium to Shri Punit Kumar Makhija and no Cover Note was given to him. He deposed that he did not file any complaint against Shri Punit Kumar Makhija and Shri Vinod when he did not receive any insurance policy because he was assured that Cover Note is valid for three months.

21. On behalf of insurance company, Shri Ankit Jalan, Executive Legal Claims entered in the witness box as R3W1 and filed his evidence by way of affidavit. He stated in his evidence by way of affidavit that Vehicle No. DL­4SNB­4070 was not insured with Respondent No. 3 Company. Cover Note No. 109000412604 was filled in the name of Shri Gagandeep Singh Arora in respect of vehicle bearing No. DL­2CP­6996, but ultimately it was not issued and the original filled and cancelled Cover Note with its three copies i.e. Office Copies, RTO's Copy and Book Copy were lying with the company. The original Cover Note with its three copies was proved as Ex. R3W1/1.

22. In cross­examination by counsel for Respondent MACT No. 175/11/09 Smt. Promila Vs. Shri Jitender Kumar & Ors. Page 6 of 19 No. 1 and 2, this witness admitted that Shri Punit Kumar Makhija was an agent of the insurance company. However, he could not answer whether Shri Punit Kumar Makhija continues to be an agent of the insurance company even today or not. He deposed that he can produce record from the branch after finding out from the insurance company regarding authorization / agency in favour of Shri Punit Kumar Makhija to act as insurance agent for their company. He deposed that Shri Punit Kumar Makhija was authorized only with regard to original insurance cover noted and in case he issued a forged and fabricated cover note, in that event, he acted outside his authority for which insurance company is not responsible. He denied that Ex. P1 is original and genuine cover note of insurance company.

23. No other witness was examined by any other party.

24. However, statement of Shri Punit Kumar Makhija was recorded on the directions of Ld. Predecessor of this Tribunal before framing of issues for the purposes of clarifications because the insurance company had taken a defence that the vehicle in question was not insured by the said insurance company.

25. When Shri Punit Kumar Makhija appeared before this Tribunal, he deposed that he is doing business of insurance in the name and style of M/s. Secure Insurance. He deposed that he was authorized to carry on insurance by authorized agent of Reliance General Insurance Company namely, Shri B.R. Goel who is running company under the name and style of M/s. Green Land Insurance. He admitted that Cover Note Ex. P1 was issued from his MACT No. 175/11/09 Smt. Promila Vs. Shri Jitender Kumar & Ors. Page 7 of 19 office and it is in the handwriting of one Shri Vinod who is working with him. (Ex. P1 is the cover note which Respondent No. 2 had with him issued by this Shri Punit Kumar Makhija which insurance company claimed was fake).

26. He further deposed that the said cover note was issued by them with respect to vehicle bearing No. DL­4SNB­4070 covering from 20.06.2009 till 19.06.2010. He deposed that telephonic instructions were received by him from one Shri Jitender (presumably Respondent No. 1) who had taken his number from one of his acquaintances. He deposed that he had directed Shri Vinod Kumar working with him to visit said Shri Jitender and issue cover note after inspection of the vehicle. The said Cover Note Ex. P1 was accordingly issued. However, as premium was not paid by the insured, said Cover Note was cancelled and was forwarded by them to the insurance company as such. He deposed that as the said Cover Note was cancelled for want of premium, there is no question of their forwarding the premium to the insurance company.

27. In cross­examination, Shri Punit Kumar Makhija admitted that Ex. P1 is in the handwriting of Shri Vinod Kumar working with him. However, the same does not bear his signatures.

28. Further cross­examination was deferred as counsel for the insurance company took some time to call the official from the company along with record with respect to this Cover Note.

29. Thereafter, this insurance agent never appeared before this Tribunal for the purposes of concluding his cross­ examination. He was not summoned as a witness by any party MACT No. 175/11/09 Smt. Promila Vs. Shri Jitender Kumar & Ors. Page 8 of 19 during the inquiry.

30. On the basis of pleadings of parties, evidence on record and arguments addressed, issue­wise findings are as under:­ ISSUE NO. 1: ­

31. Burden of proving this issue is on the petitioner.

32. For succeeding in a claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, it is for the petitioner to prove that the vehicle which caused the accident was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver.

33. This is sine qua non for getting the relief.

34. Claimant herself is eye witness of the accident. She has stated in her claim petition that on the date of accident, when she climbed on separator, then one young boy driving the offending vehicle, in a rash and negligent manner, came from the other side and hit her who as a result of this fell down on the road.

35. Respondent No. 1 has stated in his written statement that petitioner herself is responsible for the accident as she suddenly tried to cross the divider fencing through a hole made unauthorisingly in a permanent concrete fencing erected to check accidents and for undisturbed flow of traffic.

36. He has stated that there were three feet tall fencing from which she crossed the divider fencing and her movement was not visible to the driver coming from Dwarka Police Post and going towards Dwarka Mor. He stated that there was no zebra crossing for the pedestrians from which she could walk through. He also stated that he was driving the motorcycle in his lane as per traffic rules and MACT No. 175/11/09 Smt. Promila Vs. Shri Jitender Kumar & Ors. Page 9 of 19 was not negligent.

37. Whereas petitioner reiterated her contention of rash and negligent driving against Respondent No. 1 in her evidence by way of affidavit but Respondent No. 1 did not enter in the witness box to prove the defence taken by him in his written statement.

38. Petitioner stated in her cross examination that there was no zebra crossing at the place of accident. There was no cemented jali from where she was crossing the road. Copy of site plan on record does not show that there was any cemented jali to block passage of pedestrians at the place where the accident took place or unauthorised entry was made by pedestrians to pass through.

39. Police after investigation in the matter has filed charge sheet against Respondent No. 1 under Section 279/338 of IPC which is also prima facie suggestive of negligence of the Respondent No. 1 in driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner.

40. In Ranu Bala Paul & Ors. v. Bani Chakraborty & Ors. 1999 ACJ 634, the Hon'ble Gawhati High Court has observed as under:­ "In deciding a matter tribunal should bear in mind the caution struck by the Apex Court that a claim before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is neither a criminal case nor a civil case. In a criminal case in order to have conviction, the matter is to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and in a civil case the matter is to be decided on the basis of preponderance of evidence, but in a claim before the Motor MACT No. 175/11/09 Smt. Promila Vs. Shri Jitender Kumar & Ors. Page 10 of 19 Accidents Claims Tribunal the standard of proof is much below than what is required in a criminal case as well as in a civil case. No doubt before the tribunal there must be some material on the basis of which the tribunal can arrive or decide things necessary to be decided for awarding compensation. But the tribunal is not expected to take or to adopt the nicety of a civil or of a criminal case. After all, it is a summary inquiry and this is a legislation for the welfare of the society."

41. In the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Vijay Laxmi & Ors. MAC APP. No. 375/06 dated 05.07.12, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held as under:­ "8. In Bimla Devi and Ors. v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and Ors., (2009) 13 SC 530, the Supreme Court held that in a petition under Section 166 of the Act, the Claimants were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and holistic view is to be taken while dealing with the Claim Petition under the Motor Vehicles Act. Para 15 of the report is extracted hereunder:­ "15. In a situation of this nature, the Tribunal has rightly taken a holistic view of the matter. It was to be borne in mind that strict proof of an accident caused by a particular bus in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the claimants.

The claimants were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied."

9. The report in Bimla Devi (Supra) was relied on by the Supreme Court in its latest judgments MACT No. 175/11/09 Smt. Promila Vs. Shri Jitender Kumar & Ors. Page 11 of 19 in Parmeshwari v. Amir Chand (2011) 11 SCC 635 and Kusum Lata v. Satbir, (2011) 3 SCC 646."

42. In the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pushpa Rana & Ors.: 2009 ACJ 287, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held that:­ "The last contention of the appellant insurance company is that the respondents­claimants should have proved negligence on the part of the driver and in this regard the counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Meena Variyal (Supra). On perusal of the award of the Tribunal, it becomes clear that the wife of the deceased had produced: (i) certified copy of the criminal record of criminal case in F.I.R No. 955 of 2004, pertaining to involvement of the offending vehicle; (ii) criminal record showing completion of investigation of police and issue of charge­ sheet under Sections 279/304­A, Indian Penal Code against the driver; (iii) certified copy of F.I.R., wherein criminal case against the driver was lodged; and (iv) recovery memo and mechanical inspection report of offending vehicle and vehicle of the deceased. These documents are sufficient proofs to reach the conclusion that the driver was negligent. Proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act are not akin to proceedings in a civil suit and hence strict rules of evidence are not required to be followed in this regard. Hence, this contention of the counsel for the appellant also falls face down. There is ample evidence on record to prove negligence on the part of the driver."

43. This case was noticed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case titled as Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance MACT No. 175/11/09 Smt. Promila Vs. Shri Jitender Kumar & Ors. Page 12 of 19 Co. Ltd. v. Kamlesh: 2009 (3) AD (Delhi) 310 where adverse inference was drawn because the driver of the offending vehicle had not appeared in the witness box to corroborate his defence taken in the written statement. It was noted that there is nothing on record to show that the claimant had any enmity with the driver of offending vehicle so as to falsely implicate him in the case.

44. Therefore, this issue is decided in favour of petitioner and against the respondents.

ISSUE NO. 4:­

45. In the case of Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar & Anr. ACJ 2011 (Vol. I), following principles were laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court for determining compensation payable to road traffic accident victims:­

(i) The compensation payable to the claimant who is a victim of road accident should, to the extent possible, fully and adequately restore the claimant to the position prior to the accident. The object of awarding damages is to make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong done as far as money can do so, in a fair, reasonable and equatable manner.

(ii) Compensation payable in injury cases is payable under two heads. They are pecuniary damages (special damages) and non pecuniary damages. Pecuniary damages have three sub heads which are : (i) expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food and miscellaneous expenditure. (ii) (a) Loss of earning ( and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising of loss of earning during the period MACT No. 175/11/09 Smt. Promila Vs. Shri Jitender Kumar & Ors. Page 13 of 19 of treatment and (b) loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability (iii) Future medical expenses. Non­pecuniary damages (General Damage) are (iv) damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of injuries (v) loss of amenities (and /or loss of prospects of marriage) and (vi) loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity).

(iii) In routine personal injury cases compensation is awarded only under heads (i),

(ii)(a) and (iv). It is only in serious cases of injury, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the claimant, that compensation is granted under any of the heads

(ii) (b), (iii) and (vi) relating to loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospectus of marriage) and loss of expectation of life.

46. As per MLC, nature of injuries are simple. Petitioner was admitted in Surgery Department in Deen Dyal Upadhyay Hospital on 25.07.09 and discharged on 26.07.09. She has suffered non specific oedema right parietal area as seen from NCCT of Head. She had suffered cuts and skin abrasions on her different parts of body and she was treated conservatively.

47. Therefore, for Pain and Suffering, she is granted a compensation of Rs. 15,000/­.

48. Bills worth Rs. 539/­ are on record. There is a prescription slip of Gupta Medical Centre which is however not supported by any bill for fee given to the said doctor. However, it is certain that petitioner would have given fee for her treatment to the MACT No. 175/11/09 Smt. Promila Vs. Shri Jitender Kumar & Ors. Page 14 of 19 doctor at Gupta Medical Centre.

49. Therefore, on lump sum basis, petitioner is given a compensation of Rs. 1,000/­ as Cost of Treatment.

50. Additionally, petitioner is given a compensation of Rs. 5,000/­ towards Special Diet and Rs. 5,000/­ towards Conveyance Charges.

51. Therefore, total compensation payable to the petitioner would be Rs. 26,000/­ which will be paid with interest @ 7.5% p.a. (this is the rate of interest which is being awarded by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi at present) from the date of filing of this claim petition which is 26.10.2009 till its deposit in the Tribunal. ISSUE NO. 2 AND 3: ­

52. The answer to the question which of the respondents is liable to pay this compensation to the claimant depends on findings on these two issues.

53. It has come on record in the evidence of R3W1, Shri Ankit Jalan, Executive (Legal Claims) that Sh. Punit Kumar Makhija was agent of the insurance company. It has come on record in the evidence of Shri Punit Kumar Makhija that Ex. P1 was the policy issued by him to the owner of the vehicle.

54. In the evidence of R3W1, it is proved that the policy relied upon by the owner is a fake policy inasmuch as the real policy was issued in the name of Shri Gagandeep Singh Arora and that too was cancelled. The original policy with all the three copies is on record as Ex. R3W1/1.

55. In view of evidence of R3W1, this Tribunal holds MACT No. 175/11/09 Smt. Promila Vs. Shri Jitender Kumar & Ors. Page 15 of 19 that the offending vehicle was not insured by the insurance company and cover note Ex. P1 relied upon by petitioner and Respondent No. 2 is a fake cover note.

56. Having reached this conclusion, the only question to be answered is who will pay the compensation to the petitioner.

57. Admittedly, Shri Punit Kumar Makhija was an authorized agent of insurance company. Admittedly, he was authorized to issue insurance cover notes to the owners of motor vehicles after receiving insurance premium from them. He admits that he had issued cover note Ex. P1 in favour of Respondent No. 2.

58. Section 238 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 reads as under: ­ "238. Effect, on agreement, of misrepresentation of fraud by agent: Misrepresentations made, or frauds committed, by agents acting in the course of their business for their principals, have the same effect on agreements made by such agents as if such misrepresentations or frauds had been made or committed by the principals; but misrepresentations made, or frauds committed, by agents, in matters which do not fall within their authority, do not affect their principals."

59. As quoted in the commentary on the Indian Contract Act by H.S. Pathak Lexis Nexis Butterworths at page 329, a Solicitor's managing clerk, having authority to transact conveyancing business on behalf of the firm, took a client's instructions to sell some property (by his own advice, given with fraudulent intent) and got the deeds from her (which he might MACT No. 175/11/09 Smt. Promila Vs. Shri Jitender Kumar & Ors. Page 16 of 19 properly have done). Then, he procured her execution of instructions, being in fact conveyances to himself, which the client supposed (as intended by him) to be merely formal papers; and having thus obtained the means of making an apparently good title in his own name, he dealt with the property for his own purposes. The House of Lords - Lloyd Vs. Grace Smith and Company (1912) AC 716 reversing the decision of the C.A.(1911) 2 KB 489 held that this was a fraud committed by the manager in the course of his employment for which the principal was answerable. It is clear from the judgment that the rule applies to ostensible as well as to actual authority. If the act belongs to an authorized class, it is not material whether the agent intends the principal's benefit or not, not whether the principal in fact derives any benefits.

60. In the case of Kumar Mandavkar Narendra Shankar and Ors. Vs. The Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and Ors., AIR 1988 Bombay 234, the application and fees submitted to the recognized school within the prescribed time by the students appearing at the Examination of the Board of Secondary Education was misappropriated by the clerk of the school who did not transmit the applications to the Board as directed by the Head Master. It was held that the Head Master of the School was justified in entrusting the fees and applications to the clerk for delivery to the Board and the clerk of the school being one of the mediums through whom the Board dealt with the students his misdeeds would be deemed to be the misdeeds of the Board under Section 238 of the Contract Act.

61. In this case, Shri Punit Kumar Makhija is admittedly an authorized agent of the company. He was authorized to take premium from the owners of motor vehicles and issue cover notes. This is what Respondent No. 2 has done. He paid the premium to authorized agent of insurance company and got a cover note from him.

62. Just like an owner of a vehicle is not expected to distinguish a fake driving license shown to him by his driver similarly an owner of a motor vehicle when given a fake cover note by the authorized agent of insurance company cannot be expected to distinguish between a fake and original cover note.

63. Shri Punit Kumar Makhija has committed fraud acting in the course of his business for his principal i.e. the insurance company and therefore the misrepresentations and frauds made by him shall have the same effect as if such misrepresentations or frauds had been made or committed by the principals.

64. Therefore, for the frauds committed by its agent, the compensation would be by the insurance company with liberty to recover this amount from their authorized agent Shri Punit Kumar Makhija who has played fraud upon Respondent No. 2.

65. At this stage, it is to be noted that Shri Punit Kumar Makhija had stated that he was not given the premium therefore the cover note was cancelled. He was not given a suggestion on behalf of owner of vehicle that he had given the premium to him.

66. However, statement of an agent who issues fake MACT No. 175/11/09 Smt. Promila Vs. Shri Jitender Kumar & Ors. Page 18 of 19 cover notes is unbelievable as his conduct makes him unworthy of belief. Assuming that owner had not given him the premium, the agent had not issued any notice to the owner for cancelling the cover note. Even otherwise, it is mentioned on Ex. P1 that mode of payment was cash. Once the agent admits the cover note as Ex. P1, evidence contrary to written terms mentioned therein is not admissible.

67. Let insurance company deposit this compensation within 30 days under intimation to the petitioner by registered post and thereafter recover the same, if so desired from its agent.

68. Copy of this order be given dasti to all the parties.

69. File be consigned to the Record Room.

Announced in the Open Court.

On the 18th day of February, 2013 (ARUN BHARDWAJ) PRESIDING OFFICER, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL­II DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI MACT No. 175/11/09 Smt. Promila Vs. Shri Jitender Kumar & Ors. Page 19 of 19