Delhi District Court
Fujlum Pamariya vs . Mehboob on 23 August, 2012
Fujlum Pamariya Vs. Mehboob
Ishrafi Vs. Mehboob
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJIV JAIN : PRESIDING OFFICER : MACT 02
SOUTH DISTRICT : SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI
In Suit No. : 175/11
Unique Case ID : 02406C0214292011
Fujlum Pamariay @ Fajlu
S/o Mohd. Jahir Pamariya
R/o Jhuggi Moti Lal Nehru Camp,
Near Shamshan Bhumi, Munirka
New Delhi
Permanent R/o Vill. Ronti, Tehsil Raj Nagar,
Distt. Madhubani, Bihar.
In Suit No. : 395/10
Unique Case ID : 02403C0235102009
Ishrafi S/o Essa Pamariya
R/o Jhuggi No.54, Shamshan Bhoomi,
Munirka, New Delhi
Also at : 4, Ronti Village, Anchal Raja Nagar,
Distt. Madhubani, Bihar 847235
...... Petitioners
Versus
1. Mehboob
S/o Sh. Mubarak Ali
R/o T1 Gaon Mochi Garu,
Nanakpura, New Delhi
Suit No. 395/10 and 175/11 1/25
Fujlum Pamariya Vs. Mehboob
Ishrafi Vs. Mehboob
2
2. Mohd. Mujib
S/o Mohd. Rasool
R/o BB362, Ashoka Basti,
Ram Nagar, Nabi Karim,
Paharganj, Delhi
3. Mohd. Anis
S/o Sh. Abdul Rashid
T1 Gaon Mochi Garu,
Nanakpura, New Delhi
4. IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd.
FAI Building, 1st Floor,
10, Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg,
Qutab Institutional Area,
New Delhi - 110 067
......Respondents
Date of Institution : 29.07.2009 (Petition No. 395/10)
02.08.2011 (Petition No. 175/11)
Date of reserving of judgment/order : 31.07.2012
Date of pronouncement : 23.08.2012
J U D G M E N T :
1. Vide this common judgment, I shall dispose off the above stated petitions filed under Section 166 and 140 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, as amended Suit No. 395/10 and 175/11 2/25 Fujlum Pamariya Vs. Mehboob Ishrafi Vs. Mehboob 3 upto date (herein after referred to as Act), as the same have emerged out of the road accident which occurred on 27.04.09 at about 12.15 AM opp. Baba Balak Nath Temple, Anand Niketan, New Delhi whereby the petitioners have claimed compensation for the injuries sustained by them.
2. Adumbrated in brief, the facts leading to the above stated petitions are that on 27.04.09 at about 12.15 AM the petitioners were coming back from South Campus to Moti Bagh in a Mahindra Champion Tempo bearing no. DL 1L J 6495 with Tent House Goods. It was alleged that the respondent no.1 was driving the Mahindra Champion rashly and negligently. When they reached opposite Balak Nath Temple, Anand Niketan, the Mahindra Champion over turned on the road resulting injuries on the persons of the petitioners. They were taken to AIIMS Trauma Centre where their MLCs were prepared. A case was registered at the police station R K Puram vide FIR 180/09. Both the petitioners were labourers with Nasco Tent House at Moti Bagh. It was stated that the respondent no.2 was the registered owner of the Mahindra Champion and it was insured with respondent no.4. It was also stated that the respondent no.3 was the subsequent purchaser of the Mahindra Champion.
Suit No. 395/10 and 175/11 3/25
Fujlum Pamariya Vs. Mehboob Ishrafi Vs. Mehboob 4
3. Notice of the petitions was given to the respondents. Respondent no.1, 3 and 4 contested the petitions and filed their written statements. It was alleged by respondent no.1 and 3 that a false case was registered against the respondent no.1. They denied the averments made in the petitions and submitted that the offending vehicle was insured with respondent no.4 at the time of alleged accident. Respondent no.4 alleged that the petitioners were travelling in a goods carriage vehicle as gratuitous passengers and the accident had occurred solely due to the negligence of the petitioners.
4. Respondent no.2 did not contest the petition and was proceeded Exparte vide order dated 11.02.10.
5. Following issues were framed vide order dated 17.09.10 and 01.11.2011 which were consolidated as below :
1. Whether the petitioner received injuries in road accident on 27.04.09 at about 12.15 AM opp. Baba Balak Nath temple and D33, Anand Niketan due to rash and negligent driving of offending Tempo no. DL 1L J 6495 by R1, owned by R2 and R3 and insured with R4 insurance company?
2. To what amount of compensation, the petitioners are entitled and from whom?Suit No. 395/10 and 175/11 4/25
Fujlum Pamariya Vs. Mehboob Ishrafi Vs. Mehboob 5
3. Relief.
6. Parties were thereafter called upon to lead their evidence.
7. The petitioners examined themselves as PW1. The tendered their affidavits in evidence Ex.PW1/A and the documents. They also examined Sh. Rajender Singh, Clerk AIIMS as PW2. The respondents did not examine any witness.
8. I have heard the arguments advanced by Ld. counsel Sh. V K Sharma for the petitioners and Sh. Abhishek Nigam for the respondent no.4.
9. It was submitted by Ld. counsel for the petitioners that the petitioner Fujlum sustained fracture in his right leg. A rod was inserted. He remained bed ridden for about one year and has deformity in his right leg. The petitioner Ishrafi sustained head injuries. He remained hospitalised for four days. For months he could not go to his place of work. Ld. counsel stated that the petitioners used to work as labourers in a Tent House. They at the time of accident were coming in a Mahindra Champion with the Tent goods. The Mahindra Champion was being driven rashly and negligently. It turned turtle Suit No. 395/10 and 175/11 5/25 Fujlum Pamariya Vs. Mehboob Ishrafi Vs. Mehboob 6 due to which both the petitioners fell down from the vehicle and sustained injuries.
10. Ld. counsel for respondent no.4 submitted that the respondent no.1 was driving the Mahindra Champion using the fake license which fact was proved vide the report submitted on 23.02.10. Ld. counsel stated that the petitioners were travelling in the offending vehicle as gratuitous passengers, so the insurance company is not liable to compensate the petitioners.
11. I have considered the submissions and perused the record.
12. My findings on the issues are as follows :
I S S U E No. 1
13. It is well settled law that where a petition under Section 166 of the Act is instituted, it becomes the duty of the petitioner to establish rash and negligent driving. To prove rash and negligent driving in a petition under Motor Vehicles Act, Tribunal need not go into the technicality because strict rules of procedure and evidence are not followed. Basically, in road accident Suit No. 395/10 and 175/11 6/25 Fujlum Pamariya Vs. Mehboob Ishrafi Vs. Mehboob 7 cases, Tribunal has simply to quantify the compensation which is just rational and reasonable on the basis of enquiry. The proceedings under Motor Vehicles Act are not akin to the proceedings in a civil suit. Further, roving enquiry is not required to prove the rashness and negligence on the part of the driver as has been held in Kaushumma Begum and others Vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 2001 ACJ 421 SC.
14. Both the petitioners tendered their affidavits Ex.PW1/A in evidence wherein they deposed on the lines of the petitions. They stated that on 27.04.09 at about 12.15 AM they were coming back from South Campus to Moti Bagh in a Mahindra Champion Tempo bearing no. DL 1L J 6495 with Tent House Goods. The respondent no.1 was driving the Mahindra Champion rashly and negligently. When they reached opposite Balak Nath Temple, Anand Niketan, the Mahindra Champion over turned on the road resulting injuries on their persons. They were taken to AIIMS Trauma Centre where their MLCs were prepared. A case was registered at the police station R K Puram vide FIR 180/09. They placed on record the certified copy of the report U/s 173 Cr.P.C. perusal of it reveals that the case was registered on the state of Fujlum. He had stated that he and Asharfi were coming on the vehicle with Suit No. 395/10 and 175/11 7/25 Fujlum Pamariya Vs. Mehboob Ishrafi Vs. Mehboob 8 the tent goods. It was being driven by Mehboob, the respondent no.1 rashly and negligently. They had warned him many times not to drive it rashly and negligently but he did not listen and near Baba Balak Nath Temple, the tempo overturned as a result of which they fell down and sustained injuries. The mechanical inspection report shows fresh damage on the body of Mahindra Champion. On their MLCs the doctor opined the injuries grievous. Both PW1 and PW2 have admitted that they were travelling on a goods carrying vehicle and at that time they were five in numbers including driver and helper. They were sitting on the top of goods. PW2 proved their MLCs and the transfer out forms. The testimony of both the witnesses on the aspect of rash and negligent driving by respondent no.1 remained unrebutted. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled ''NationalInsurance Company Limited V/s Pushpa Rana'' reported as 2009 ACJ 287 has held that whenever criminal proceedings are placed on record on completion of investigation by the police, then that in itself is sufficient proof of the negligent driving of driver of the offending vehicle involved in the accident.
15. It is therefore, established that the petitioners sustained injuries in the accident which occurred due to rash and negligent driving of offending Suit No. 395/10 and 175/11 8/25 Fujlum Pamariya Vs. Mehboob Ishrafi Vs. Mehboob 9 container Mahindra Champion bearing no. DL 1L J 6495 by respondent no.1. As per the R.C. the vehicle was registered in the name of respondent no.2 Md. Mujid. As per the policy on record, the offending vehicle was insured with respondent no.4.
16. Issue no.1 is accordingly, decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondent no.1, 2 and 4.
I S S U E No. 2
17. The petitioners have claimed compensation in respect of the injuries sustained by them. In a road accident a person is entitled to compensation for the pecuniary and nonpecuniary damages.
18. It has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court in R.O. Hattangadi V/s Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd., AIR 1995 SC 755 that : "Broadly speaking, while fixing the amount of compensation payable to a victim of an accident, the damages have to be assessed separately as pecuniary damages and special damages. Pecuniary damages are those which the victim has actually incurred and which are capable of being calculated in terms of money; whereas nonpecuniary damages are those which are incapable of Suit No. 395/10 and 175/11 9/25 Fujlum Pamariya Vs. Mehboob Ishrafi Vs. Mehboob 10 being assessed by arithmetical calculations. In order to appreciate two concepts pecuniary damages may include expenses incurred by the claimant: (i) medical attendance;
(ii) loss of earning of profit up to the date of trial; (iii) other material loss. So far as nonpecuniary damages are concerned, they may include (i) damages for mental and physical shock, pain and suffering already suffered or likely to be suffered in future; (ii) damages to compensate for the loss of amenities of life which may include a variety of matters ie. on account of injury, the claimant may not be able to walk, run or sit ; (iii) damages for the loss of expectation of life, i.e. on account of injury the normal longevity of the person concerned is shortened; (iv) inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life."
COMPENSATION FOR EXPENSES INCURRED ON MEDICAL TREATMENT :
19. PW1 Ishrafi has stated that he sustained injuries on his head. He was taken to AIIMS Trauma Centre. He spent around Rs. 35000/ on his treatment which is still continuing. He made regular visits to the hospital as an OPD patient. He filed the medical documents/card/prescription Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/2 and the original bills for Rs. 276/ and the photocopies of the bills of Rs. 1545/. As per his MLC, the injuries were opined grievous. He was discharged after four days. He was prescribed medicines and follow up. Suit No. 395/10 and 175/11 10/25
Fujlum Pamariya Vs. Mehboob Ishrafi Vs. Mehboob 11 Looking into his injuries, I am of the view that he might have spent much more. I therefore, award Rs. 5000/ to the petitioner towards medical expenses.
PW1 Fujlum sustained fracture on his right wrist. He was operated and a steel rod was inserted in his hand. He spent around Rs. 25000/ on his treatment. He filed the medical cards Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/7. As per the MLC he sustained grievous injuries. Medical documents shows that his treatment continued for long. He was advised physiotherapy and further followup. In this case he did not file any medical bill but looking into the injuries I find that he might have spent some amount on medicines. I therefore, award Rs. 5000/ to the petitioner towards medical expenses. COMPENSATION FOR PAIN AND SUFFERINGS AND ENJOYMENT OF LIFE :
20. The medical record/discharge summary of the petitioners indicate that the petitioners were hale and hearty before the accident. They sustained grievous injuries. They followed up their treatment as OPD patients. The injuries caused them lot of pain and sufferings. They could not do their work for quite a long time. Taking into consideration their injuries, I award Rs. Suit No. 395/10 and 175/11 11/25
Fujlum Pamariya Vs. Mehboob Ishrafi Vs. Mehboob 12 25,000/ each to the petitioners towards pain and suffering and enjoyment of life.
COMPENSATION FOR SPECIAL DIET, ATTENDANT CHARGES AND CONVEYANCE CHARGES :
21. Both the petitioners after the accident were taken to AIIMS hospital. They were hospitalised for days. They were advised medicines. They followed up their treatment as out door patients. They were advised rich diet and protein for early recovery. The injuries were grievous in nature. They remained bed ridden for long. They might have taken the help of attendant for performing their ordinary pursuits. Taking into consideration all these facts, I award Rs. 15,000/ each to the petitioners towards special diet, conveyance and attendant charges.
COMPENSATION FOR LOSS OF INCOME :
22. The petitioners had been working in a Tent House. In this case the petitioners did not file any document as to their proof of income. So, the minimum wages are taken for calculating the loss of income which as on the date of accident were Rs. 3934/ p.m. The injuries on their persons were Suit No. 395/10 and 175/11 12/25 Fujlum Pamariya Vs. Mehboob Ishrafi Vs. Mehboob 13 grievous. Petitioner Fujlum was operated on his hand and a rod was inserted. The petitioner Ishrafi sustained head injuries. The injuries were such that they might have remained bed ridden for three months. Taking a period of three months and the wages as Rs. 3934/, the loss of income is calculated as 3 3934 = Rs. 11,802/ which is rounded off to Rs. 12,000/. I therefore, awarded Rs. 12,000/ each to the petitioners towards loss of income.
23. Thus, the total compensation in favour of the petitioners is assessed as under : Petition No. 395/10 175/11 Medical Expenses : Rs. 5,000/ Rs. 5,000/ Pain and Sufferings & Enjoyment of Life : Rs. 25,000/ Rs. 25,000/ Special Diet, Attendant & Conveyance Charges : Rs. 15,000/ Rs. 15,000/ Loss of Income : Rs. 12,000/ Rs. 12,000/ ========== ========== TOTAL : Rs. 57,000/ Rs. 57,000/ ========== ========== Suit No. 395/10 and 175/11 13/25 Fujlum Pamariya Vs. Mehboob Ishrafi Vs. Mehboob 14 L I A B I L I T Y
24. As regards the liability, the offending vehicle was being driven by respondent no.1, therefore primary liability to compensate the petitioners is that of respondent no.1. As the offending vehicle was owned by respondent no.2, therefore, he becomes vicariously liable to compensate the petitioners. It is an admitted position on record that the offending vehicle was insured with respondent no.4, therefore, respondent no.4 becomes contractually liable to compensate the petitioners.
25. Ld. counsel in his quest to exonerate the insurance company from its liability contended that the petitioners were travelling in a goods carrying commercial vehicle. They being gratuitous passengers are not entitled to claim compensation from the insurer as it is a case of violation of terms and condition of the insurance policy by the insured i.e. respondent no. 2.
26. Ld. counsel for the petitioners on the contrary submitted that the petitioners were the permanent labourers of the owner of the Tent House. They were coming with the tent goods on the offending vehicle at the time of accident thus, were not gratuitous passengers.
Suit No. 395/10 and 175/11 14/25
Fujlum Pamariya Vs. Mehboob Ishrafi Vs. Mehboob 15
27. I have considered the submissions.
28. It is pertinent to make a brief mention of relevant portion of Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which reads as under : Requirements of policies and limits of liability-
(1) In order to comply with the requirements of this Chapter, a policy of insurance must be a policy which
(a) is issued by a person who is an authorized insurer; and;
(b) insures the person or classes of persons specified in the policy to the extent specified in subsection (2)
(i) against any liability which may be incurred by him in respect of the death of or bodily [injury to any person, including owner of the goods or his authorized representative carried in the vehicle] or damage to any property of a third party caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place; (emphasis supplied)
(ii) . . .
29. Legislature in its wisdom had carried out an amendment in Section 147, sub Suit No. 395/10 and 175/11 15/25 Fujlum Pamariya Vs. Mehboob Ishrafi Vs. Mehboob 16 clause (i) of clause (b) and the expression ''any person'' has been substituted by the words ''injury to any person, including owner of the goods or his authorized representative carried in the vehicle''.
30. Hon'ble Supreme Court in a number of judgments has categorically interpreted these amendments carried out by the Legislature, stating that the intention of the Legislature by making these changes in Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, is definitely, not to include ''gratuitous passenger'' but, it has been specifically laid down that in any ''goods carrying vehicle'', owner of the goods or his authorized representative can travel and their risks shall be covered under the policy.
31. Admittedly, in the present case, the offending vehicle was a ''goods carrying vehicle'' but from the testimony of PW1 it is apparent that the petitioners had been working in a Tent House. They were coming on a goods vehicle with the Tent goods after the function for unloading at a shop at Moti Bagh. It is not the case that they were travelling as passengers rather they were the labourers of the Tent House.
Suit No. 395/10 and 175/11 16/25
Fujlum Pamariya Vs. Mehboob Ishrafi Vs. Mehboob 17
32. In the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Jameela & Ors. 2012 ACJ 1522, the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Suresh K K 2008 ACJ 1741 (SC) and the provisions of Section 147 (1) (b) (i) of the Motor Vehicle Act were discussed. In that case, the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Alekutty Anthony, 2010 ACJ 2481 Kerala was discussed wherein it was held that a person continues to be the owner of the goods or the representative of the owner of the goods even while returning after unloading of the goods. It was held that risk of the person who sustained injury as the owner of the goods or the representative of the owner of the goods is covered by the insurance policy under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicle Act and that a person continues to be the owner of the goods or representative of the owner of the goods even while returning after unloading of the goods.
33. In the case in hand the petitioners were coming with the goods as the representatives of the owner of the goods which were to be unloaded at the Tent House of the owner after the function. Thus, they cannot in any term be called as gratuitous passengers / unauthorized passengers travelling in the goods carrying vehicle. As such an interpretation would thwart the object for which this provision was enacted, instead of augmenting the same. Suit No. 395/10 and 175/11 17/25
Fujlum Pamariya Vs. Mehboob Ishrafi Vs. Mehboob 18
34. Keeping in view these peculiar facts, the case law National Insurance Co.
Ltd. Vs. Prema Devi & Ors. 2008 (5) SCC 405 relied upon by the respondent no.2 are distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the case.
35. The provisions of Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, being part of a benevolent piece of legislation, have to be given such interpretation, so as to further the object for which it has been brought on the Statute Book.
36. I am of the view that this case does not fall in the category of gratuitous passenger which the petitioners are not entitled for compensation from the respondent no.4.
37. It was further contended by Ld. counsel for respondent no.4 that the respondent no. 1 was driving the vehicle using the fake license. Ld. counsel placed reliance on the report of the SHO and the proceedings dated 23.02.12.
38. I have considered the submissions and perused the record. Suit No. 395/10 and 175/11 18/25
Fujlum Pamariya Vs. Mehboob Ishrafi Vs. Mehboob 19
39. It has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case titled as Lal Chand Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. reported as 2006 (3) TAC321 SC that Insurance Company has to show and prove on record that due and adequate care was not taken by the owner or owner had the knowledge that driver was not holding a valid driving license. Only in that eventuality the Insurance Company can be absolved of its contractual obligation, not otherwise.
40. In the instant case verification report was called from the SHO PS R K Puram. He has reported vide proceedings dated 23.02.12 that the license no. 22330/A9/05 was not issued to the respondent no.1 from the RTO Office, Agra. He also filed the report given by the RTO, Agra which bears the stamp of the Authority. No evidence is led on behalf of respondent no. 1 to rebut this fact. Nor the respondent no.2 led evidence to prove that he had verified the genuineness of license allegedly in possession of respondent no. 1 before giving him the Tempo to drive. As per the terms of the policy, a person must hold an effective driving license and is not disqualified from holding or obtaining such a license. This very act on the part of respondent no. 2 amounts to breach of the insurance policy. It was held in the case of Kamala Mangalal Vayani & Ors. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Suit No. 395/10 and 175/11 19/25 Fujlum Pamariya Vs. Mehboob Ishrafi Vs. Mehboob 20 others (2010) 12 SCC 488 that once a comprehensive insurance policy is admitted on or so proving any breach of insurance conditions, is on the insurer and not claimants. In the present case, the insurance company i.e. respondent no. 4 has been able to establish that the vehicle was not plying on the road in consonance with the terms of the policy. Thus, the liability to compensate the petitioners would remain with that of respondent no. 1 and respondent no. 2 i.e. driver /owner of the offending vehicle jointly and severally.
41. Legislature being conscious of the magnitude of the plight of the victims of road accident have introduced the present beneficial provisions to protect the interest of third parties i.e. victims of road accident so as to enable them to claim compensation from the driver/ owner of the vehicle. Legislature in its wisdom has made it a statutory obligation of every owner to have his vehicle insured against third party risks. This has been made mandatory so that victims of road accident even after being granted compensation from the court, should not run from pillar to post to have the orders of the court executed and to facilitate them to get the same from the Insurance Company. It was held in the case of "National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Vasdev Kukreja & Ors II (2010) ACC 148"
that primary liability to pay the award amount is of insurance company. In that Suit No. 395/10 and 175/11 20/25 Fujlum Pamariya Vs. Mehboob Ishrafi Vs. Mehboob 21 case there was a breach of terms and conditions of the policy as there was violation as to the category of the vehicle which the driver was authorised to drive. The Hon'ble High Court directed the insurance company to pay the award and granted the recovery rights in its favour to recover the award amount from the owner of the offending vehicle.
42. Balancing the "twin interest" of the Insurance Company at one hand and that of the third party i.e. petitioner for whose benefit the present legislation was brought on the statute book, it is directed that the Insurance Company shall pay the compensation awarded to the petitioner within the time given in this award and shall have the right to recover the same from respondent No. 1 and 2 jointly and severally.
43. For the foregoing reasons, the respondent no. 4 is directed to pay compensation awarded to the petitioner and shall have the right to recover the same from respondent no. 1 and 2 jointly and severally.
R E L I E F In Petition no. 395/10 and 175/11
44.In view of my findings on issues, I award a sum of Rs. 57,000/ each to the Suit No. 395/10 and 175/11 21/25 Fujlum Pamariya Vs. Mehboob Ishrafi Vs. Mehboob 22 petitioners Ishrafi and Fujlum Pamariya as compensation with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization of the amount. Deposition of awarded amount with STATE BANK OF INDIA, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi.
45. Respondent no.4 is directed to deposit the awarded amount in favour of the petitioners directly to the State Bank of India, Saket Courts Complex Branch within 45 days from today failing which the respondent no. 4 Insurance Company shall be liable to pay future interest @ 12% per annum till realization (for the delayed period).
46. The Respondent no. 4 is directed to file the compliance report of its having deposited the awarded amount with State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch in this tribunal within a period of 45 days from today.
47. The Respondent no. 4 is directed to furnish a copy of this award alongwith the cheques of the awarded amount to the Manager of State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch, so as to facilitate the Manager of State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch to have the identification of the claimants/petitioners in Suit No. 395/10 and 175/11 22/25 Fujlum Pamariya Vs. Mehboob Ishrafi Vs. Mehboob 23 whose favour the award has been passed.
48. The Respondent no. 4 shall intimate to the claimants / petitioners about its having deposited the cheques in favor of the petitioner in terms of the award, at the address of the petitioners mentioned at the title of the award, so as to facilitate her to withdraw the same.
49. Copy of this award / judgment be given to the parties for necessary compliance.
50. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court
rd
on 23 Day of August, 2012 (SANJIV JAIN )
Presiding Officer : MACTII
South Distt. : Saket Courts
New Delhi : 23.08.2012
Suit No. 395/10 and 175/11 23/25
Fujlum Pamariya Vs. Mehboob
Ishrafi Vs. Mehboob
24
Ishrafi Vs. Mehboob
Suit No. 395/10
23.08.2012
Present : None.
Vide separate order of even date both the petition no. 395/10 and 175/11 have been disposed off.
Copy of the award be given to the parties.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(SANJIV JAIN ) Presiding Officer : MACTII South Distt. : Saket Courts New Delhi : 23.08.2012 Suit No. 395/10 and 175/11 24/25 Fujlum Pamariya Vs. Mehboob Ishrafi Vs. Mehboob 25 Fujlum Pamariya Vs. Mehboob Suit No. 175/11 23.08.2012 Present : None.
Vide separate order of even date both the petition no. 395/10 and 175/11 have been disposed off.
Copy of the award be given to the parties.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(SANJIV JAIN ) Presiding Officer : MACTII South Distt. : Saket Courts New Delhi : 23.08.2012 Suit No. 395/10 and 175/11 25/25