Delhi District Court
Pushkar Bisht vs . Chandra Sekhar & Ors. on 20 November, 2019
Pushkar Bisht vs. Chandra Sekhar & Ors.
Parwati Bisht vs. Chandra Sekhar & Ors.
IN THE COURT OF SHRI SAMEER BAJPAI : PRESIDING OFFICER :
MACT : SOUTH DISTT. : SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI
Petition No. : 463/17
Pushkar Bisht
S/o Sh. Pan Singh Bisht
through its Natural Guardian/father
Sh. Pan Singh Bisht
R/o H. No. 1646, Sector3,
Pushp Vihar, Delhi - 110 017
Petition No. : 464/17
Parwati Bisht
W/o Sh. Pan Singh Bisht
R/o H. No. 1646, Sector3,
Pushp Vihar, Delhi - 110 017
...... Petitioners
Versus
1. Chandra Sekhar
S/o Sh. Jai Dutt (Owner)
2. Rakesh Joshi
S/o Sh. Chandra Sekhar Joshi
Both R/o Vill. Rupanauli, PostSurey,
Distt. Almora, Uttrakhand - 263653 (Driver)
3. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
Through its Manager,
Mall Road, Almora, Uttrakhand 263601 (Insurer)
......Respondents
Date of Institution : 13.11.2017
Date of reserving of judgment/order : 05.11.2019
Date of pronouncement : 20.11.2019
Petition No. : 463/17 and 464/17 Page No. 1 of 18
Pushkar Bisht vs. Chandra Sekhar & Ors.
Parwati Bisht vs. Chandra Sekhar & Ors.
JUDGMENT:
1. By this judgment I shall dispose off the above mentioned claim petitions filed by the petitioners for the injuries sustained by them in a road traffic accident on 04.06.2017 at about 1100 hrs. at Katpatia, Jhimar area, Almora, Uttrakhand due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing no. UK 04 TA 6337 by respondent no.2, owned by respondent no.1 and insured with respondent no.3.
2. In their written statement respondents no.1 and 2 stated that they are not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners as no cause of action has ever arisen in favour of the petitioners and against them. They further stated that the accident never took place due to the negligence of the respondent no.1 and the police has registered a false and frivolous case against the respondent no.2. They further stated that the alleged vehicle was duly insured with respondent no.3 vide policy no. 2508013116P109091147.
3. Respondent no.3 filed its written statement denying the averments made by the petitioners. It however, admitted that the alleged vehicle was insured with it vide policy no. 2508013116P109091147 for the period from 09.10.2016 to 08.10.2017 in the name of respondent no.1.
4. From the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed :
1. Whether the petitioners sustained injuries in a road accident on 04.06.2017 at about 1100 hrs. at Katpatia, Jhimar area, Almora, Uttarakhand within the jurisdiction of police station Petition No. : 463/17 and 464/17 Page No. 2 of 18 Pushkar Bisht vs. Chandra Sekhar & Ors.
Parwati Bisht vs. Chandra Sekhar & Ors.
Patwari area, Jhimar (Salt) due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing no. UK 04 TA 6337 by respondent no.2, owned by respondent no.1 and insured with respondent no.3?
2. To what amount of compensation, the petitioner is entitled and from whom?
3. Relief.
5. In Claim Petition no. 463/17 Sh. Pan Singh Bisht father of Pushkar Bisht examined himself as PW1.
6. In Claim Petition no. 464/17 petitioner Parwati Bisht examined herself as PW3.
7. Respondent no.3 examined Sh. Rajender Singh Bisht, Jr. Assistant, RTO, Almora, Uttarakhand as R3W1.
I S S U E No. 18. Needless to say that for making someone entitled U/s 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle needs to be proved and to prove the same the Tribunal need not go into the technicalities because strict rules of procedure and evidence are not followed. Basically, in road accident cases, Tribunal has simply to quantify the compensation which is just, rational and reasonable on the basis of enquiry. It is an admitted legal position that the negligence on part of the driver with respect to use of the vehicle needs to be established and the same is to be established on the principle of Petition No. : 463/17 and 464/17 Page No. 3 of 18 Pushkar Bisht vs. Chandra Sekhar & Ors.
Parwati Bisht vs. Chandra Sekhar & Ors.
preponderance of probabilities as decided in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Harsh Mishra & Ors. III (2015) ACC 435 Delhi.
PW1 Pan Singh Bisht stated that on 04.06.2017 the injured alongwith her mother was returning from the marriage of his maternal uncle. They were travelling in a Tata Sumo bearing no. UK 04 TA 6337. He further stated that the driver of the said Tata Sumo was driving his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the hill top at Katpatia, resulting in unbalancing of Tata Sumo due to which all the occupants of the said Tata Sumo sustained injuries. They were taken to Mattrik Hospital and Accidental Care Haldwani, Uttarakhand for treatment. He further stated that thereafter, the injured was referred to another hospital for further treatment. The injured was brought to Delhi and remained admitted in Cygnus Orthocare Hospital from 05.06.2017 to 07.06.2017. He further stated that a case vide FIR no. 1/17 u/s 279/337/338 IPC was registered at the police station Patwari area Jhimar (Salt), Distt. Almohra against the respondent no.1.
During crossexamination he stated that he was not travelling in the alleged vehicle. He was in another Tata Sumo at that time. He further stated that he does not remember the registration number of the Tata Sumo in which he was travelling, but it was Tata Sumo. He further stated that his vehicle was not moving by the side of the offending vehicle but it was about 1520 steps behind his vehicle. He voluntarily stated that the offending vehicle was being driven at a high speed.
PW2 Parwati Bisht deposed on the lines of PW1. During crossexamination on behalf of insurance company she Petition No. : 463/17 and 464/17 Page No. 4 of 18 Pushkar Bisht vs. Chandra Sekhar & Ors.
Parwati Bisht vs. Chandra Sekhar & Ors.
stated that she received injuries on her face, head and hand. She further stated that the police did not come at the spot in her presence.
During crossexamination on behalf of respondent no.1 and 2 she stated that she was sitting on the front seat of the vehicle by the driver side. She further stated that at the time of accident the vehicle in which she was travelling was on a curve. She further stated that the vehicle in which her husband was travelling was coming behind them. She further stated that at the time of accident, the speed of their vehicle was very much high. She voluntarily stated that infact they had asked the driver to drive the vehicle slowly, but he did not do so. She further stated that besides her and her son, no other persons sitting in their vehicle sustained injuries. She denied that no accident happened at all. She denied that the driver of the vehicle in which she was travelling was falsely implicated.
The petitioners have placed on record certified copy of charge sheet and site plan. Charge sheet has been filed against the respondent no.2. From the testimony of PW1 and PW2 it is clear on record that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Tata Sumo bearing no. UK 04 TA 6337. The FIR was registered against the respondent no.2 i.e. the driver of the said vehicle. Nothing material came in crossexamination of PW1 and PW2 to disbelieve their version of accident. Even no other version of accident has come on record. Therefore, the petitioners have established on record that they sustained injuries in a road accident on 04.06.2017 due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing no. UK 04 TA 6337 by respondent no.2. Documents placed on record shows that the vehicle Petition No. : 463/17 and 464/17 Page No. 5 of 18 Pushkar Bisht vs. Chandra Sekhar & Ors.
Parwati Bisht vs. Chandra Sekhar & Ors.
was owned by respondent no.1 and insured with respondent no.3.
Hence, this issue is decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
I S S U E No. 2Petition No. : 463/17 MEDICAL EXPENSES :
9. In the present case PW1 has placed on record original medical bill of Rs.56,771/. I therefore, award Rs.56,771/ to the petitioner towards medical expenses.
PAIN AND SUFFERINGS AND ENJOYMENT OF LIFE :
10. As per the discharge summary the petitioner was diagnosed with fracture both bone forearm left with swelling with fracture proximal phalanx of right thumb with impending compartment syndrome. He was operated. Open reduction and internal fixation for fracture Radius was done. Open reduction and internal fixation for ulna was also done. He remained admitted in Orthocare Hospital from 05.06.2017 to 07.06.2017. He was again admitted in Orthocare Hospital from 04.01.2019 to 05.01.2019 for removal of implant. Having regard to the injuries and treatment of the petitioner, I award Rs.1,00,000/ to the petitioner towards pain and sufferings and enjoyment of life.
SPECIAL DIET AND CONVEYANCE CHARGES:
11. PW1 stated that he spent Rs.5,000/ on special diet and Rs.5,000/ on Petition No. : 463/17 and 464/17 Page No. 6 of 18 Pushkar Bisht vs. Chandra Sekhar & Ors.
Parwati Bisht vs. Chandra Sekhar & Ors.
conveyance. Although no documents have been filed by the petitioner to show the expenses on special diet and conveyance, however, having regard to the injuries and treatment of the petitioner, I award Rs.30,000/ to the petitioner under this head.
COMPENSATION FOR MENTAL AND PHYSICAL SHOCK :
12. The injuries on the person of the petitioner were such that he must have suffered mental and physical shock, for which he has to be compensated. Looking into the injuries and disability of the petitioner, I award him Rs.20,000/ towards mental and physical shock.
LOSS OF STUDIES :
13. PW1 stated that at the time of accident, the petitioner was a student of class VI Kendriya Vidyalaya, Pushp Vihar, New Delhi. He further stated that from the date of accident, the petitioner is unable to perform his study efficiently as earlier and suffered loss of study. He placed on record the report card of the petitioner for the academic year 201718.
Looking into the injuries, treatment and report card of the petitioner, the Tribunal is of the mind that the injuries have affected the studies of the petitioner. Therefore, a sum of Rs.35,000/ is awarded to the petitioner towards loss of studies.
14. The total compensation in favour of petitioner is assessed as under :
Petition No. : 463/17 and 464/17 Page No. 7 of 18Pushkar Bisht vs. Chandra Sekhar & Ors. Parwati Bisht vs. Chandra Sekhar & Ors.
MEDICAL EXPENSES : Rs. 56,771/
PAIN & SUFFERINGS & ENJOYMENT OF LIFE : Rs. 1,00,000/
SPEICAL DIET, CONVEYANCE & ATTENDANT : Rs. 30,000/
COMPENSATION FOR MENTAL &
PHYSICAL SHOCK : Rs. 20,000/
LOSS OF STUDIES : Rs. 35,000/
============
TOTAL : Rs. 2,41,771/
============
Petition No. : 464/17
15. PW2 stated that she received injuries on her face, head and hand.
She further stated that she did not take any treatment from Ram Nagar but she got herself checked in some hospital in New Delhi. She further stated that police did not send her to the hospital for medical checkup in any hospital. She further stated that she went to see the doctor for her medical treatment regarding the injuries as received in the accident in question, after about 20 days. She further stated that she has not filed any medical bills.
In the present case the petitioner has placed on record medical prescription dated 05.06.2017 which shows the complaint of headache only. Other medical documents shows C/o ENT bleed, vomiting, fever 34 days etc. Although on the medical prescriptions 'R.T.A. i.e. Road Traffic Accident' has been mentioned, however, the injuries on the person of the petitioner seems not to be so serious. Even otherwise, the petitioner has not placed on record any MLC by which the nature of the injuries can be ascertained. However, balancing all the facts, I award Rs. 15,000/ to the petitioner towards pain and sufferings and Petition No. : 463/17 and 464/17 Page No. 8 of 18 Pushkar Bisht vs. Chandra Sekhar & Ors.
Parwati Bisht vs. Chandra Sekhar & Ors.
enjoyment of life and mental and physical shock.
LIABILITY
16. As the offending vehicle was being driven by respondent no. 2, primary liability to compensate the petitioners is of respondent no. 2. Since the vehicle was owned by respondent no.1, he is vicariously liable to compensate the petitioners. It is an admitted position on record that the vehicle was insured with respondent no.3, therefore, respondent no.3 is contractually liable to compensate the petitioners.
17. Ld. counsel for the insurance company in order to exonerate the insurance company from its liability contended that the respondent no.2 was driving the offending vehicle without a valid driving license.
18. R3W1 brought the record of driving license bearing no. UK 0120130018164. He further stated that he brought a letter dated 22.05.2019 issued by Assistant Regional Transport Officer, Almora. He further stated that according to the letter/report of the Assistant Regional Transport Officer, the license of the respondent no.2 was valid till 06.06.2021, however, the endorsement for driving the vehicle on the Hill area was made on 14.08.2015. He further stated that as per his knowledge, the endorsement is done only once till the expiry of the driving license. He further stated that he also brought the copy of relevant portion of Uttrakhand Motor Vehicle Rules 2011 and Rule 195 regarding endorsement verifies the situation in hand. He placed on record all the relevant record.
Petition No. : 463/17 and 464/17 Page No. 9 of 18Pushkar Bisht vs. Chandra Sekhar & Ors.
Parwati Bisht vs. Chandra Sekhar & Ors.
19. In the present case R3W1 placed on record a letter issued by Assistant Regional Transport Officer, Almora stating that the endorsement for driving the vehicle on Hilly areas was made on 14.08.2015. In the said letter nowhere it is written that till which time the driving license is valid for driving in Hilly areas. R3W1 has categorically stated that endorsement for driving the vehicle on Hilly areas is done only once till the expiry of the driving license. A letter dated 03.06.2019 issued by Sh. Alok Joshi, Assistant Regional Transport Officer, Almora has also been received by the Tribunal in which it is stated that the driving license bearing no. UK 0120130018164 dated 18.06.2013 was issued to the respondent no.2 for the category MCWG (NT), LMV (NT). It is further stated that in the said license endorsement for MCWG (NT), LMV (NT), LMV CAB (Transport) was made on 08.06.2015. Further, the said license was valid to drive NonTransport vehicle from 18.06.2013 to 17.06.2033 and for the Transport category from 08.06.2015 to 07.06.2018. Thereafter, again the said driving license was renewed for the period from 07.06.2018 to 06.06.2021 for the Transport category. It is further stated in the said letter that the endorsement to drive the vehicle in Hilly areas was made on 14.08.2015. It is further stated that as per rules the endorsement regarding Hilly areas is done only 'One Time' and there is no provision to renew the said endorsement, therefore, the driving license bearing no. UK0120130018164 was valid to drive the offending vehicle on the Hilly areas.
20. In view of the above discussion, it is established on record that the Petition No. : 463/17 and 464/17 Page No. 10 of 18 Pushkar Bisht vs. Chandra Sekhar & Ors.
Parwati Bisht vs. Chandra Sekhar & Ors.
respondent no.2 driving the offending vehicle with a valid driving license and there is no breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Hence, the insurance company is liable to satisfy the award and shall not recover the same from the respondents no.1 and 2.
RELIEF
21. In view of my findings, I award Rs. 2,41,771/ (Rs. Two Lakhs Forty One Thousand Seven Hundred Seventy One only) to the petitioner Pushkar Bisht in claim petition no. 463/17 and Rs.15,000/ (Rs. Fifteen Thousand only) to the petitioner Parwati Bisht in claim petition no. 464/17 as compensation alongwith interest @9% per annum from the date of filing the petition till its realisation.
Out of the awarded amount of Rs.2,41,771/ qua the petitioner Pushkar Bisht in claim petition no. 463/17, Rs.2,00,000/ is directed to be kept in the form of fixed deposit in the following phased manner :
1. Rs. 1,00,000/ for a period of 01 year.
2. Rs. 1,00,000/ for a period of 02 years.
The entire amount of the petitioner Parwati Bisht in claim petition no. 464/17 be released to her.
Since the petitioners have not complied the directions of Hon'ble High Court regarding disbursement of award amount, therefore, it is ordered that no amount shall be released to the petitioners till they comply the directions of Hon'ble High Court.
Petition No. : 463/17 and 464/17 Page No. 11 of 18 Pushkar Bisht vs. Chandra Sekhar & Ors.
Parwati Bisht vs. Chandra Sekhar & Ors.
Deposition of awarded amount with STATE BANK OF INDIA, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi.
22. In consonance to the idea conceptualized and formulated in various land mark judgments of our own Hon'ble High Court, by which part of the awarded amount is ordered to be kept in fixed deposit / savings account by Hon'ble High Court, respondent no.3 is directed to deposit the awarded amount in favour of the petitioners with State Bank of India, Saket Courts Complex Branch, against account of petitioners within a period of 30 days from today, failing which the respondent no.3 shall be liable to pay future interest @12% per annum till realization (for the delayed period).
23. The respondent no. 3 is directed to credit the amount directly to the MACT account of State Bank of India, District Court, Saket branch. Details of the bank i.e. IFSC code etc. have been provided to the ld. counsel for the insurance company.
24. Upon the aforesaid amount being deposited, the State Bank of India, Saket Court Complex, New Delhi, is directed to keep the awarded amount in the "fixed deposit / saving account'' in the following manner:
1. The interest on the fixed deposit be paid to the petitioner / claimant by Automatic Credit of interest of their saving bank accounts with State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi.
2. Withdrawal from the aforesaid account shall be permitted to petitioner / claimant after due verification and the Bank shall issue photo identity Card to claimants / petitioners to facilitate identity.
Petition No. : 463/17 and 464/17 Page No. 12 of 18 Pushkar Bisht vs. Chandra Sekhar & Ors.
Parwati Bisht vs. Chandra Sekhar & Ors.
3. No cheque book be issued to petitioner / claimant without the permission of this Court.
4. The original fixed deposit receipts shall be retained by the Bank in safe custody. However, the original Pass Book shall be given to the petitioner / claimant alongwith the photocopy of the FDRs .
5. The original fixed deposit receipts shall be handed over to petitioner / claimant at the end of the fixed deposit period.
6. No loan, advance or withdrawal shall be allowed on the said fixed deposit receipts without the permission of this Court.
7. Half yearly statement of account be filed by the Bank in this Court.
8. On the request of petitioner / claimant, the Bank shall transfer the Savings Account to any other branch of State Bank of India, according to their convenience.
9. Claimant / petitioner shall furnish all the relevant documents for opening of the Saving Bank Account and Fixed Deposit Account to Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Saket Courts Complex Branch, New Delhi.
10. The bank is also directed to get the nomination form filled by the claimants at the time of preparation of FDRs.
11. The bank is also directed to keep the money received from the respondent no.3 in an FDR in the name of the bank till the FDRs are prepared in the name of the claimant, so that the benefit of better interest may be given to the claimant for the said period.
12. The Manager, State Bank of India, District Court Saket branch is directed not to release any amount to the petitioner from this branch, unless ordered by the Tribunal in terms of the order of the Hon'ble High Court in FAO No. 842/2003 and CM Applications No. 32859/2017, 4112541127/2017 in Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. dated 09.03.2018. It is made clear that the amount including the maturity amount of the FDRs shall be released to the petitioners through RTGS/ NEFT directly in the personal bank account of the petitioners of the bank nearest to their place of residence.
DIRECTIONS FOR THE RESPONDENT No. 325. The Respondent no.3 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 30 days from today.
Petition No. : 463/17 and 464/17 Page No. 13 of 18 Pushkar Bisht vs. Chandra Sekhar & Ors.
Parwati Bisht vs. Chandra Sekhar & Ors.
26. The Respondent no.3 is directed to furnish a copy of this award alongwith the cheque 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 whose favour the award has been passed.
27. The Respondent no.3 shall intimate the claimants/petitioners about its having deposited the amount in favor of the claimants in terms of the award, at the address of the claimants mentioned at the title of the award, so as to facilitate them to withdraw the same.
28. Copy of this award / judgment be given to the claimants who are directed to furnish the same to the Manager of State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch for necessary compliance after their having received the notice of the deposit of awarded amount by the respondent no.3.
29. Copy of this Award / Judgment be given to the parties for compliance.
30. The case is now fixed for compliance by the respondent no.3 for 20.12.2019.
FORM IVB SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD Petition No. : 463/17 and 464/17 Page No. 14 of 18 Pushkar Bisht vs. Chandra Sekhar & Ors.
Parwati Bisht vs. Chandra Sekhar & Ors.
1) Date of accident : 04.06.2017
2) Name of the injured : Pushkar Bisht
3) Age of the injured: 10 years
4) Occupation of the injured : Student
5) Income of the injured : Nil
6) Nature of injury : Grievous
7) Medical treatment
taken by the injured : Open reduction and internal fixation for
fracture Radius was done. Open reduction
and internal fixation for ulna was also done.
8) Period of hospitalisation : 03 days. 9) Whether any permanent disability? : No 10. Computation of Compensation S. Heads Awarded by the No. Claims Tribunal 11 Pecuniary Loss : i Expenditure on treatment Rs.56,771/ ii Expenditure on special diet and conveyance Rs.30,000/ iii Loss of earning capacity iv Loss of Studies Rs.35,000/ v Any other loss which may require any special
treatment or aid to the injured for the rest of his life.
12 NonPecuniary Loss :
i Compensation for mental and physical shock Rs. 20,000/ ii Pain and suffering Rs. 1,00,000/ iii Loss of amenities iv Disfiguration and marriage prospects v Loss of marriage prospects vi Future Loss of Income
13 Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity :
Petition No. : 463/17 and 464/17 Page No. 15 of 18 Pushkar Bisht vs. Chandra Sekhar & Ors. Parwati Bisht vs. Chandra Sekhar & Ors.
(i) Percentage of disability assessed and nature of disability as permanent or temporary
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning capacity in relation to disability
14 TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.2,41,771/ 15 INTEREST AWARDED 9% 16 Total amount of interest Rs.43,941/ 17 Total amount including interest Rs.2,85,712/ 18 Award amount released Rs.85,712/ 19 Award amount kept in FDRs Rs.2,00,000/ 20 Mode of disbursement of the award amount to No amount shall be the claimant(s) released to the petitioner till he comply the directions of Hon'ble High Court 21 Next date for compliance of the award. 20.12.2019 FORM IVB SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD
1) Date of accident : 04.06.2017
2) Name of the injured : Parwati Bisht
3) Age of the injured: 42 years
4) Occupation of the injured : Housewife
5) Income of the injured : Nil
6) Nature of injury : Simple
7) Medical treatment taken by the injured : Plaint CT Scan of head done.
8) Period of hospitalisation :
9) Whether any permanent disability? : No Petition No. : 463/17 and 464/17 Page No. 16 of 18 Pushkar Bisht vs. Chandra Sekhar & Ors.
Parwati Bisht vs. Chandra Sekhar & Ors.
10. Computation of Compensation S. Heads Awarded by the No. Claims Tribunal 11 Pecuniary Loss :
i Expenditure on treatment ii Expenditure on special diet and conveyance iii Loss of earning capacity iv Loss of Income v Any other loss which may require any special
treatment or aid to the injured for the rest of his life.
12 NonPecuniary Loss :
i Compensation for pain and sufferings and Rs. 15,000/ mental and physical shock ii Loss of amenities iii Disfiguration and marriage prospects iv Loss of marriage prospects v Future Loss of Income
13 Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity :
(i) Percentage of disability assessed and nature of disability as permanent or temporary
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning capacity in relation to disability
14 TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.15,000/ 15 INTEREST AWARDED 9% 16 Total amount of interest Rs.2,726/ 17 Total amount including interest Rs.17,726/ 18 Award amount released Entire amount is released 19 Award amount kept in FDRs Petition No. : 463/17 and 464/17 Page No. 17 of 18 Pushkar Bisht vs. Chandra Sekhar & Ors.
Parwati Bisht vs. Chandra Sekhar & Ors.
20 Mode of disbursement of the award amount to No amount shall be
the claimant(s) released to the
petitioner till she
comply the
directions of Hon'ble
High Court
21 Next date for compliance of the award. 20.12.2019
Digitally signed
by SAMEER
SAMEER BAJPAI
BAJPAI Date:
2019.11.25
Announced in the Open Court 14:32:03 +0530
on 20th day of November, 2019 (SAMEER BAJPAI)
Presiding Officer : MACT/SD
Saket Courts : New Delhi
20.11.2019
Petition No. : 463/17 and 464/17 Page No. 18 of 18