Delhi District Court
Ghanander vs . Dharmender on 1 November, 2011
Ghanander Vs. Dharmender
1
IN THE COURT OF SHRI SANJIV JAIN PO : MACT02 : SOUTH DISTT.
SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI
In Suit No. 787/10
Ghanander S/o Sh. Shiv Ram Singh
(Through his legal heirs)
1. Smt. Parvesh W/o Sh. Ghanander
2. Master Chetan S/o Sh. Ghanander
3. Master Najender S/o Sh. Ghanander
4. Km. Mohini D/o Sh. Ghanander
5. Sh. Shiv Ram Singh S/o Late Chura Mani
6. Smt. Rajwanti W/o Sh. Shiv Ram Singh
All R/o : S2/178, Old Mahaveer Nagar,
Tilak Nagar, Delhi ...... Petitioners
Versus
1. Sh. Dharmender S/o Sh. Handal
R/o 135, Kalyanpuri,
N.H.3, Faridabad,Haryana (Driver)
2. Mr. Latif
S/o Sh. Abdul Aziz
R/o 724, Nehru Colony,
N.H.3, Faridabad, Haryana (Owner)
3. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.
Having its Registered office at
Oriental House, A25/27
Suit No. : 787/10 1/23
Ghanander Vs. Dharmender
2
Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi
Regional office :
Jeewan Bharati Building,
9th Floor, Tower1, Cannaught Place,
New Delhi (Insurer)
.......Respondents
Date of Institution : 25.08.2005
Date of reserving of judgment/order : 01.11.2011
Date of pronouncement : 01.11.2011
J U D G M E N T :
1. This petition u/s. 166 & 140 of the M.V. Act, 1988 as amended upto date (hereinafter referred to as Act) has been filed by Ghanander through his wife, minor children and parents claiming a compensation of Rs. 2,00,00,000/ for the injuries sustained by him in an accident which took place on 13.05.05 opp. A8, Kailash Colony, New Delhi with a Tata 407 bearing registration number HR 38 L 1516 being driven in a rash and negligent manner by respondent no.1, owned by respondent no.2 and insured with respondent no. 3.
2. Relevant facts necessary for adjudication and disposal of the present petition as emanating from the same, apart from those stated herein above are that: Suit No. : 787/10 2/23 Ghanander Vs. Dharmender 3
(a) On 13.05.05 the injured had started his journey on his scooter bearing no. DL 8S U 4998 from Tughalkabad to New Delhi Railway Station. When he reached opposite A8, Kailash Colony, his scooter was hit by a Tata 407 bearing no. HR 38 L 1516 being driven by respondent no.1 in a rash and negligent manner. The injured fell down and sustained head injuries. After hitting, the respondent no.1 tried to run away from the spot, however, he was overpowered and arrested by the police. The injured was taken to AIIMS and thereafter on 14.05.05 he was shifted to Batra Hospital. A case vide FIR no. 450/05 was registered at the police station Lajpat Nagar.
(b) It was stated that the injured remained in the hospital under Comma till 22.06.05. The condition of the injured was not improving. The doctors told the petitioners that it was not possible to save the life of the petitioner, so he was got discharged from the hospital to avoid further expenses. It was stated that the petitioner had an agricultural income of Rs. 6,00,000/ p.a. He was earning Rs. 5,000/ p.m. from his private service and Rs. 4,000/ p.m. from part time liaison work.
Suit No. : 787/10 3/23
Ghanander Vs. Dharmender 4
(c) It was stated that ِthe injured was aged about 35 years. He was the only earning male member in his family.
(d) It is stated that petitioners be adequately compensated.
3. Notice of the petition was given to the respondents. Pursuant to the same, respondents appeared and filed their written statements.
4. Respondent No. 1 & 2 denied the allegations of the petitioners as averred in the petition and stated that the accident did not take place due to rash and negligent driving of Tata 407. It was stated that the respondent no.1 was roped in the present case by confusion. Respondent no.3 stated that the cover note no. 98275 vide which the vehicle was stated to be insured was cancelled by the insurance company on account of nonrealisation of the premium amount. It was however, stated that there was no rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Tata 407.
5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed vide order dated 28.04.07 :
i) Whether petitioner suffered injuries in an accident which took place on 13.05.05 at about 9.00 PM involving Tata 407 bearing Suit No. : 787/10 4/23 Ghanander Vs. Dharmender 5 no. HR 38L 1516 due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no.1, owned by respondent no.2 and insured with respondent no.3? .......OPP.
ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount and against which of the respondents?
iii) Whether the respondent no.3 is not liable to pay compensation on account of preliminary objections taken in written statement.
iv) Relief.
6. Parties to the present petition were thereafter called upon to substantiate their case by leading evidence.
7. Petitioner no.1 Smt. Parvesh appeared in the witness box as PW1 and filed her affidavit Ex.PW1/1. She averred on the lines of main petition. She stated that her husband could not recover from the injuries and expired on 12.01.2008. She relied upon the MLC Ex.PW1/F, treatment record/discharge certificate of Batra hospital Ex.PW1/G, certified copy of report U/s 173 Cr.P.C. Ex.PW1/I, FIR Ex.PW1/J, driving license Ex.PW1/K, insurance policy Ex.PW1/L, Medical bills Ex.PW1/N. PW2 Suresh Chand stated that he knew the deceased Suit No. : 787/10 5/23 Ghanander Vs. Dharmender 6 for the last 810 years. He had been doing the business of grain/agricultural products. He placed on record the sale receipts Ex.PW2/A, B and C. PW3 Sh. Deepak Kumar stated that he had worked as an attendant with the deceased from 01.07.06 to 12.01.08 and he used to get Rs. 3000/ per month from the petitioner. PW4 Sh. K Krishnan stated that on 13.05.05 he alongwith the deceased was going to Uttam Nagar. He was on his bike and the deceased was on his scooter. When they reached GKI, at about 7.30/7.45 PM one tempo no. HR 38 L 1516 came from behind being driven at a very fast speed and hit against the scooter as a result of which he fell down and became unconscious. PW5 Sh. Girish Chand Bhat, Income Tax Inspector brought the ITR of the deceased for the assessment year 200304 and 200405 Ex.PW5/A and Ex.PW5/A1. PW6 Sh. Neeraj Tyagi, Billing Clerk, Batra Hospital & Medical Centre proved the IPD medical bills of the deceased Ex.PW1/N (colly.) for Rs. 1,71,644/.
8. It is pertinent to mention that the during the proceedings the petitioner died i.e. 12.01.08.
9. No witness was examined by any of the respondents.
10. I have heard the arguments advanced by Ld. Counsel Sh. J S Dagar, for the petitioners and Sh. Ravi Sabharwal, for the respondent no. 3 as well as Suit No. : 787/10 6/23 Ghanander Vs. Dharmender 7 perused the documentary evidence on record.
11. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that due to involvement of the vehicle driven by respondent no.1, not only deceased Ghanander lost his life but the lives of the petitioners have also been ruined as the deceased was the supporting earning member of the family and serving all financial and sentimental needs of his family. It is submitted that deceased would have gone on to live a longer life, had he not met with the accident.
12. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions of the parties and perused the record.
13. My findings on the Issues are as under: : I S S U E No. 1:
14. Standard of proof of negligence required in order to dispose off the claim stands on a much lesser footing than what is required in a criminal case or in a civil case. It was held in " Ranu Bala Paul and Ors. V/s Bani Chakraborty and Ors., 1999 ACJ 634 by Hon'ble Guahati High Court :
"In deciding a matter Tribunal should bear in mind the caution struck by the Apex Court that a Suit No. : 787/10 7/23 Ghanander Vs. Dharmender 8 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 Accidents Claims Tribunal, the standard 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."
15. In N.K.V.Bros(P) Ltd. V/s M.Karumai Ammal & Others, (1980) 3 SCC 457, Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under: "Road accidents are one of the top killers in our country, specially when bus and bus drivers operate nocturnally. This proverbial recklessness often persuades the courts, as has been observed by us earlier in other cases, to draw an initial presumption in several cases based on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. Accidents Tribunals must take special care to see that innocent victims do not suffer and drivers and owners do not escape liability merely because of some Suit No. : 787/10 8/23 Ghanander Vs. Dharmender 9 doubt here or some obscurity there. Save in plain cases, culpability must be inferred from the circumstances where it is fairly reasonable. The court should not succumb to niceties, technicalities and mystic maybes. We are emphasizing this aspect because we are often distressed by transport operators getting away with it thanks to judicial laxity, despite the fact that they do not exercise sufficient disciplinary control over the drivers in the matter of careful driving. The heavy economic impact of culpable driving of public transport must bring owner and driver to their responsibility to their 'neighbour'. Indeed, the State must seriously consider no fault liability by legislation."
16. In the backdrop of above case law, the evidence of the petitioners is required to be considered.
17. Petitioner no. 1 has filed her affidavit Ex.PW1/A and deposed on the same lines as stated in the petition. She placed on record MLC of AIIMS Ex.PW1/F and treatment record/discharge certificate of Batra hospital Ex.PW1/G. She also relied upon certified copy of report U/s 173 Cr.P.C. Ex.PW1/I, FIR Ex.PW1/J, driving license Ex.PW1/K, insurance policy Ex.PW1/L, Medical bills Ex.PW1/N. She also proved the disability certificate Ex.PW1/H. PW4 in his testimony deposed about Suit No. : 787/10 9/23 Ghanander Vs. Dharmender 10 the manner of the accident. He has stated that when they reached at GKI, the offending Tata 407 came from behind being driven at a very fast speed and it while overtaking, hit against the scooter of deceased. It has come in the testimony of PW1 that the deceased sustained severe head injuries with intro ventricular hemorrhage. He became unconscious on the spot. It has also come in the testimony of PW1 that the deceased remained in Comma and became 100% permanent disabled and died on 12.01.08. On going through the medical papers and the testimony of the witnesses, I find that the cause of death was the accident as the deceased before the accident did not have any history of medical ailment. Although, the postmortem on the body of deceased was not conducted but the documents placed on record coupled with the testimony of the witnesses clearly prove that the death had resulted in the road traffic accident. It is also clear from the testimony of the witnesses and the record that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent act of the driver of Tata 407 i.e. Respondent no. 1. The certified copies of criminal proceedings, duly corroborate the deposition of witnesses that respondent no. 1 failed to adhere to his duties and had driven the offending vehicle in a negligent manner. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled ''National Insurance 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. Suit No. : 787/10 10/23
Ghanander Vs. Dharmender 11
18. Petitioners, thus, have been able to establish that accident took place due to negligence of respondent No. 1 which resulted in the death of deceased Ghanander. It is also an admitted position on record that respondent no. 2 was the owner of the offending vehicle. The petitioner has also filed the certified copy of the insurance policy of the offending policy i.e. Ex.PW1/L. Although, the respondent no.3 in its written statement has alleged that the insurance cover note was never delivered and it was cancelled but no such suggestions were given to the petitioners during evidence. Even otherwise, the respondent no.3 did not examine any witness to substantiate this fact. In the absence of any evidence contrary to the the deposition made by PW1 and considering the insurance policy Ex.PW1/L, an irresistible conclusion is drawn that the offending vehicle was insured with respondent no.3 and it was valid on the day of accident.
19. Issue No. 1 is accordingly decided in favour of the petitioners.
: I S S U E N o. 2 & 3:
20. As issue No. 1 is decided in favour of the petitioners in affirmative, petitioners thus become entitled for the compensation. Quantum of the compensation however is required to be calculated.
21. It has been held in a catena of judgments that emphasis in cases of Suit No. : 787/10 11/23 Ghanander Vs. Dharmender 12 personal injury and fatal accident should be on awarding substantial, just and fair compensation and not a token amount. General principle in calculating such sum of compensation, should be so as to put the injured or legal heirs of a deceased in case of fatal accident, in the same position as he would have been, if accident had not taken place. The amount of compensation no doubt cannot bring back the dead but it certainly helps the LR's and dependents to live life with dignity and comfort as they were living during the lifetime of the deceased. The amount of compensation is awarded on the basis of age, the earning capacity and other liabilities of the deceased. The appropriate method of calculating compensation in fatal cases is multiplier method. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in plethora of judgments has laid down that in India, the multiplier method is proper for calculation of compensation.
22. In order to calculate the amount of compensation, the sum is required to be considered under the various heads :
(a) COMPENSATION FOR EXPENSES INCURRED ON MEDICAL TREATMENT
23. PW1 has stated that her husband was admitted in the hospital on 14.05.2005. He sustained severe head injuries with intro ventricular hemorrhage. Suit No. : 787/10 12/23
Ghanander Vs. Dharmender 13 She stated that her husband had a permanent disability of 100%. She has also filed the disability certificate Ex.PW1/H. She stated that the deceased remained under treatment for a period of three years and he incurred Rs. 7,00,000/ on his treatment. She also filed the medical bills Ex.PW1/N (colly.) for Rs. 4,66,650/. On going through the discharge summary, medical papers and the bills, I find that the petitioner might have spent much more. Looking into the injuries and facts and circumstances of the case I award a sum of Rs. 4,67,000/ to the petitioners towards the expenses incurred on medical treatment.
(b) COMPENSATION FOR SPECIAL DIET, ATTENDANT CHARGES AND CONVEYANCE CHARGES
24. PW1 has stated that due to the accident her husband remained in the hospital for a period of 38 days. He remained in comma till his death. She stated that he was discharged from Batra Hospital in comma condition after observing that he was not going to recover. He remained on bed for about 2 ½ years. He also attended the hospital as an outdoor patient. He became 100% physically disabled after the accident. He also took the help of the attendant in his daytoday work. The special diet was advised to him for his recovery. The petitioners have examined PW3 Sh. Deepak Kumar. He has stated that he worked as an attendant with the deceased from 01.07.06 to 12.01.08 an a salary of Rs. 3000/ per month. Suit No. : 787/10 13/23
Ghanander Vs. Dharmender 14 Taking into consideration the multiple injuries and all the facts, I award a sum of Rs. 20,000/ towards special diet, Rs. 25,000/ on conveyance and Rs. 60,000/ towards attendant charges.
(c) LOSS OF DEPENDENCY
25. Petitioner No. 1, during the course of her deposition as PW1 has stated that she, her sons & daughter and the parents are the only legal heirs of the deceased Ghanander. This fact has not been controverted by the respondents and no contrary evidence to that effect has been brought on record. No one else has challenged the claim petition filed by the petitioners, therefore, deposition of PW1 is to be believed on this aspect.
26. PW1 has stated that the deceased was the only earning male member in the family and the petitioners were fully dependent on him as they had no other source of income. She stated that the deceased used to get Rs. 5,000/ p.m. from his private job. He was also doing liasoning work in part time from which he was earning Rs. 4000/ per month. She stated that the deceased was also earning Rs. 6,00,000/ per annum from the sale of agricultural products. Facts and circumstances show that the deceased was a young man and had a long way to go. PW1 has filed the Income Tax Returns of the deceased, Ex.PW1/B (colly.) which Suit No. : 787/10 14/23 Ghanander Vs. Dharmender 15 shows the annual income of deceased as Rs. 56,282/ after deducting the income tax.
27. For calculating the loss of dependency, the total emoluments as per the Income Tax return, is taken as Rs. 56282/ per annum.
28. Out of this average gross income of deceased and considering that six petitioners including his wife, three children and the parents were dependent on the deceased, then he by no stretch of imagination could have spent more than onefourth of his earning on himself. In view thereof, monthly loss of dependency of the petitioners would come to Rs. 56,282 - 14,070 [1/4th of 56,282] = Rs. 42,212/.
29. On perusal of the record, I find that the deceased was born in the year 1970. So, the age of deceased on the date of accident was 34 years. In view thereof and considering the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Smt. Sarla Verma vs. DTC 2009 (6) SCALE 129 Case", a multiplier of '16' in this case is required to be applied.
30. In view thereof, actual loss of dependency would come to Rs. 42,212 x 16 = Rs. 6,75,392/ which is rounded off to Rs. 6,75,400/. Suit No. : 787/10 15/23
Ghanander Vs. Dharmender 16
31. I therefore, award a sum of Rs. 6,75,400/ to the petitioners towards "Loss of Dependency".
(d) LOSS OF LOVE & AFFECTION
32. I award a total sum of Rs. 25,000/ to the petitioners on account of "Loss of Love & Affection".
(e) LOSS OF CONSORTIUM
33. I award a sum of Rs. 10,000/ to the petitioner no.1 on account of "Loss of Consortium" .
(f) FUNERAL EXPENSES
34. I award a sum of Rs. 10,000/ to the petitioners on account of "Funeral Expenses" .
(f) LOSS OF ESTATE
35. I award a sum of Rs. 10,000/ to the petitioners on account of "Loss to Estate".
: LIABILITY :
36. As the offending vehicle was being driven by respondent No. 1 therefore primary liability to compensate the petitioner is that of respondent No. 1. Suit No. : 787/10 16/23
Ghanander Vs. Dharmender 17 As the offending vehicle was owned by respondent No. 2 therefore, he becomes vicariously liable to compensate the petitioner. The offending vehicle was insured with respondent No. 3 insurance company. Therefore, respondent No. 3 Insurance Company becomes contractually liable to indemnify the petitioner for the above mentioned awarded amount to the extent of liability of the insured.
37. Issue No. 2 and 3 are decided accordingly in favour of the petitioners.
R E L I E F
38. In view of my finding on issue No. 1, 2 and 3, petitioners are entitled to the following compensation :
1) MEDICAL EXPENSES = Rs. 4,67,000/
2) LOSS OF DEPENDANCY = Rs. 6,75,400/
3) SPECIAL DIET, ATTENDANT &
CONVEYANCE CHARGES = Rs. 1,05,000/
4) LOSS OF LOVE & AFFECTION = Rs. 25,000/
5) LOSS OF CONSORTIUM = Rs. 10,000/
6) FUNERAL EXPENSES = Rs. 10,000/
7) LOSS OF ESTATE = Rs. 10,000/
TOTAL = Rs. 13,02,400/
39. Petitioners are thus awarded a sum of Rs. 13,02,400/ alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date filing of petition till realization of the amount.
Suit No. : 787/10 17/23
Ghanander Vs. Dharmender 18 : RELEASE OF THE AWARDED AMOUNT : In the share of Petitioner No. 1: (Wife of deceased).
40. A sum of Rs. 8,52,400/ alongwith the proportionate interest thereon, is awarded to petitioner no. 1, being wife of deceased.
41. Out of this awarded amount, a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/ be deposited in the form of FDR in the name of petitioner No. 1 in the following phased manner :
(a) A sum of Rs. 50,000/ for a period of 2 years
(b) A sum of Rs. 50,000/ for a period of 3 years.
(c) A sum of Rs. 50,000/ for a period of 4 years.
(d) A sum of Rs. 50,000/ for a period of 5 years.
In the share of Petitioner No. 2 to 4: (Minor Children of deceased)
42. A sum of Rs. 1,00,000/ each alongwith the proportionate interest thereon, is awarded to petitioners No. 2 to 4, being children of deceased. This awarded amount shall be kept in the form of separate FDR's in the respective names of Petitioner No. 2 to 4 till they attain the age of 18 years.
In the share of Petitioner No. 5 and 6: (Parents of deceased)
43. A sum of Rs. 75,000/ each alongwith the proportionate interest thereon, is awarded to petitioners no. 5 and 6, being parents of deceased. Suit No. : 787/10 18/23
Ghanander Vs. Dharmender 19 Deposition of awarded amount with STATE BANK OF INDIA, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi.
44. In terms of the directions given by Hon'ble High Court in case titled "Rajesh Tyagi Vs. Jaibir Singh and Ors." bearing FAO number 842/2003 decided on 08.06.20009, UCO Bank/ State Bank of India has agreed to open a Special Fixed Deposit Account for the victims of road accidents.
45. As per orders of Hon'ble High Court in case titled " New India Assurance Co. Ltd Vs. Ganga Devi & Ors bearing MAC. App. 135/2008" as well as in another case titled as " Union of India V/s Nanisiri" bearing M.A.C. Appeal No. 682/2005 dated 13.01.2010, directions were given to the Claims Tribunal to deposit part of the awarded amount in fixed deposit in a phased manner depending upon the financial status and financial needs of the claimants.
46. In consonance to the idea by which part of the awarded amount is ordered to be kept in fixed deposit / savings account by Hon'ble high Court, Insurance Company 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.
Suit No. : 787/10 19/23
Ghanander Vs. Dharmender 20 within a period of 45 days from today, failing which respondent No. 3 Insurance Company shall be liable to pay future interest @ 12% per annum till realization (for the delayed period)
47. Upon the aforesaid amount being deposited, the State Bank fo India, Saket Court Complex, New Delhi, is directed to keep the awarded amount in the "fixed deposit / saving account'' in the following manner:
(i) The interest on the fixed deposit be paid to the petitioners / claimants by Automatic Credit of interest of their saving bank accounts with State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi.
(ii) Withdrawal from the aforesaid account shall be permitted to claimants / petitioners after due verification and the Bank shall issue photo identity Card to claimants / petitioners to facilitate identity.
(iii) No cheque book be issued to claimants / petitioners without the permission of this Court.
(iv) The original fixed deposit receipts shall be retained by the Bank in safe custody. However, the original Pass Book shall be given to the claimants / petitioners alongwith the photocopy of the FDR's .
(v) The original fixed deposit receipts shall be handed over to claimants / petitioners at the end of the fixed deposit period.
(vi) No loan, advance or withdrawal shall be allowed on the said fixed deposit receipts without the permission of this Court.
Suit No. : 787/10 20/23
Ghanander Vs. Dharmender 21
(vii) Half yearly statement of account be filed by the Bank in this Court.
(viii)On the request of claimants / petitioners, the Bank shall transfer the Savings Account to any other branch of State Bank of India, according to their convenience.
(ix) Claimants / petitioners 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 DIRECTIONS FOR THE INSURANCE COMPANY
48. The Respondents no. 3 is directed to file the compliance report of their having deposited the awarded amount with State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch in this tribunal within a period of 45 days from today.
49. The Insurance Company 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 whose favour the award has been passed.
50. The Respondent no. 3 is further directed to furnish the claim petition number and name of the parties at the back side of the cheques of the awarded amount, so that the same be not misplaced.
Suit No. : 787/10 21/23
Ghanander Vs. Dharmender 22
51. The Insurance Company shall intimate to the claimants / petitioners about their having deposited the cheques in favor of the petitioners in terms of the award, at the address of the petitioners mentioned at the title of the award, so as to facilitate them to withdraw the same.
52. Copy of this award / judgment be given to the petitioners 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 from the Insurance company.
53. Copy of this Award / Judgment be given to counsel for the Insurance Company for necessary compliance.
54. File be consigned to record room after receipt of the compliance report from the Insurance company.
Announced in the open court on 01st day of November, 2011 (SANJIV JAIN) PO : MACT02 / SOUTH DISTT.
New Delhi : 01.11.2011
Suit No. : 787/10 22/23
Ghanander Vs. Dharmender
23
Ghanander Vs. Dharmender
Suit No. 787/10
01.11.2011
Present : Ld. counsel for the parties.
Vide separate order of even date a compensation of Rs. 13,02,400/ with interest @ 9% is passed from the date of filing the petition till the realization of the amount in favour of petitioners.
Copy of the award be given to the parties.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(SANJIV JAIN) PO : MACT02 / SOUTH DISTT.
New Delhi : 01.11.2011 Suit No. : 787/10 23/23