Delhi District Court
Sh. Raj Narayan (Husband) vs Shahid (Driver) on 6 March, 2021
IN THE COURT OF DR. KAMINI LAU : JUDGE (MACT)01
(CENTRAL) TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
MACT No. 281/2019
CNR No. DLCT010046852019
1. Sh. Raj Narayan (Husband)
S/o Sh. Krishan
2. Himanshu (Son)
S/o Sh. Raj Narayan
3. Chanchal (Daughter)
D/o Sh. Raj Narayan
All Resident of:
Village Gopalpur, 13 R Sonipat,
Haryana131402.
(Petitioner No.3 being minor
represented through her Father
Sh. Raj Narayan/ Natural Guardian / Petitioner No.1)
......Petitioners
Versus
1. Shahid (Driver)
S/o Sh. Liyakat Ali
R/o:5657/10, Hanuman Mandir,
Nabi Karim, Delhi110055.
2. Rajan Dabla (Owner)
S/o Jai Pal Dabla
R/o Nabi Karim, Paharganj,
New Delhi110055.
Raj Narayan & ors. Vs. Shahid & Ors., MACT No. 281/2019, Award dated 06.03.2021 Page No. 1 of 34
Digitally signed by KAMINI LAU
KAMINI LAU Date: 2021.03.06 17:21:47
+0530
3. Go Digit General Insurance (Insurance Company)
Delhi Business Center Unit FLO 305/310,
Plot No.9, 10 and 11, Vardhman Trade Center,
Nehru Place South Delhi110019.
Policy No. D000488186.
Valid from 12.06.2018 to 11.06.2019.
......Respondents
Date of filing of claim petition: 09.04.2019
Arguments concluded on: 19.02.2021
Date of passing of Award: 06.03.2021
A W A R D:
(1) The present Claim Petition has been preferred under Sections
166 & 140 of Motor Vehicles Act by the petitioners claiming a
compensation of Rs.40,00,000/ (Rupees Forty Lacs Only) in respect
of death of the deceased Rashmi in a motor vehicular accident which
place on 26.08.2018 at around 2.40 PM at Bahad Rakba Kulasi
Moor, Village Kanoda, Haryana.
(2) Though the accident had not taken place within the jurisdiction
of this Tribunal, yet vide order dated 09.04.2019 the Ld. Predecessor of
this Court has observed that the respondents no.1 and 2 are stated to be
residing within the jurisdiction of Police Station Pahar Ganj, Delhi
falling within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal.
Raj Narayan & ors. Vs. Shahid & Ors., MACT No. 281/2019, Award dated 06.03.2021 Page No. 2 of 34
Digitally signed by KAMINI LAU
KAMINI LAU Date: 2021.03.06 17:22:46 +0530
BRIEF FACTS:
(3) The Facts in Brief as emerged from the claim petition are that on 26.08.2018 around 2.40 PM, Smt. Rashmi (since deceased) was coming to her house by Scooty bearing registration No. UP70T3855 which was being driven by her son Himanshu at a normal speed and on the correct side of the road. When they reached near Bahad Rakba Kulasi Moor, Village Kanoda Haryana, a Car bearing registration No. DL10CA9244, which was being driven by its driver i.e. respondent no.1 at a very high speed, rashly, negligently, in a zigzag manner, without taking proper lookouts, violating the traffic rules and without blowing any horn, came from village Ladrawan side and hit the Scooty bearing registration No. UP70T3855, with a great force. As a result of the impact Smt. Rashmi and Himanshu fell down on the road and sustained Grievous injuries. Smt. Rashmi was immediately taken to Shivam Hospital from where she was referred to PGIMS Rohtak where she was declared as "brought dead" after which her postmortem was conducted at mortuary PGIMS Hospital Rohtak, Haryana. (4) According to the petitioners, the respondent no.1 Shahid was the driver of the offending car at the time of accident whereas respondent no.2 Rajan Dabla is the owner of the offending car and the Respondent No.3 Go Digit General Insurance Co. is the Insurance Company.
(5) A detailed common written statement / reply has been filed on behalf of the respondents no.1 and 2 wherein a preliminary objection has been raised that the petitioners have no cause of action Raj Narayan & ors. Vs. Shahid & Ors., MACT No. 281/2019, Award dated 06.03.2021 Page No. 3 of 34 Digitally signed by KAMINI LAU KAMINI LAU Date: 2021.03.06 17:22:56 +0530 against the respondents because no accident has caused due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the respondent no.1 and the respondent no.1 has not caused any accident as alleged but the police officials involved the vehicle of the respondents in the present case only to get the compensation. It is further averred that the amount of compensation as claimed by the petitioners is highly excessive, exorbitant and has been calculated in arbitrary manner, without following the Motor Vehicle Act and Rules. It is also averred that the vehicle of the respondents was duly insured with the respondent no.3 at the time of alleged accident and the respondent no.1 was having valid driving license, at the time of the alleged accident, therefore the respondents are not liable to compensate the petitioners in any manner whatsoever. (6) A detailed written statement / reply has been filed on behalf of the respondent no.3 M/s. Go Digit General Insurance Co. Ltd. wherein it is pleaded all the material allegations made in the present petition are false and the petition is not maintainable either on facts or in law against the respondent no.3. Without admitting the factum of the accident and liability, it is pleaded that the liability of the respondent no.3 if any is as per the terms and conditions and exceptions of the valid Insurance Policy and as per the compliance of the provisions of the M.V. Act and Insurance Act as well as the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. The respondent no.3 has relied upon all defences provided under Sections 147, 149, 157 and 170 of the Motor Vehicle Act. It is pleaded that the respondent no.3 is entitled to take all the defences available under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicle Act if it is Raj Narayan & ors. Vs. Shahid & Ors., MACT No. 281/2019, Award dated 06.03.2021 Page No. 4 of 34 Digitally signed by KAMINI LAU KAMINI LAU Date: 2021.03.06 17:23:04 +0530 held that the owner / Insured of the insured Vehicle No. DL10CA9244 is not contesting the case and is in collusion with the petitioners. It is also pleaded that without prejudice to the other objections, the respondent no.3 shall have no liability to indemnify the respondent no.2 or to pay any amount of compensation to the petitioners in case it is held that the respondent no.1 was not holding a valid and effective driving license authorizing him to drive the insured vehicle and the respondent no.2 has fundamentally violated the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy by allowing the respondent no.1 to drive the insured vehicle without a valid and effective driving license. It is further submitted that the petition of the petitioners is bad for nonjoinder of necessary parties since the owner and Insurer of the scooty bearing registration No. UP70T3855 are also the necessary parties to the proceedings. It is further pleaded that without prejudice the deceased had sustained fatal injuries due to negligence on the part of his son while driving the scooty on which the deceased was traveling as pillion rider.
ISSUES FRAMED:
(7) On the basis of the pleading of the parties, vide order dated 14.01.2020, the following issues were settled by this court:
i. Whether the claim petition of the petitioners is bad for non joinder of necessary parties as the owner and insurer of the scooty No. UP70T3855 have not been made parties?
(OPR3)
Raj Narayan & ors. Vs. Shahid & Ors., MACT No. 281/2019, Award dated 06.03.2021 Page No. 5 of 34
Digitally signed by KAMINI LAU
KAMINI LAU Date: 2021.03.06 17:23:12
+0530
ii. Whether the deceased Smt. Rashmi had expired on account of the injuries sustained in the road accident which took place on 26.08.2018 at about 2.40 PM at Bahad Rakba Kulasi Moor, Village Kanonda, Haryana due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing No. DL10CA9244 by the respondent no.1 Shahid? (OPP) iii. Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation? If yes, as to what extent and from whom? (OPP) iv. Relief.
EVIDENCE:
(8) In order to prove his case, the petitioner no.1 Raj Narayan has examined himself as PW1 as his sole witness whereas the respondent no.1 Shahid has examined himself as R1W1. In so far as the respondent no.3 Insurance company is concerned, they have not examined any witness despite opportunity in this regard. For the sake of convenience, the testimonies of all the witnesses are put in a tabulated form as under:
S. Witness Deposition No. Petitioner's Evidence:
1. Sh. Raj Narayan PW1 Sh. Raj Narayan is the petitioner no.1 who in his (PW1) examinationinchief by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A has corroborated what he has been stated earlier in the claim petition. He has placed his reliance upon the following documents:
1. Photocopy of Aadhar Card of the deceased Ex.PW1/1 which is deexhibited and marked as Mark A. Raj Narayan & ors. Vs. Shahid & Ors., MACT No. 281/2019, Award dated 06.03.2021 Page No. 6 of 34 Digitally signed by KAMINI LAU KAMINI LAU Date: 2021.03.06 17:23:19 +0530
2. Copy of death certificate of the deceased which is Ex.PW1/2.
3. Photocopy of certificate (cutting & stitching) issued by Nehru Yuva Kendra, Nangloi, Delhi in the name of the deceased which is Ex.PW1/3 in the affidavit, which was deexhibited and marked as Mark B.
4. Photocopy of Aadhar Card of the petitioner no.1 which is Ex.PW1/4.
5. Photocopy of Aadhar Card of petitioner no.2 which is Ex.PW1/5.
6. Photocopy of Aadhar Card of petitioner no.3 which is Ex.PW1/6 which was deexhibited and marked as Mark C.
7. Certified copy of criminal record which is Ex.PW1/7 (Page No. 1 to 17, Colly).
In his cross examination by the Ld. Counsel for the respondents, the witness has deposed as under: That the witness has denied the suggestion that no accident had taken place involving the Car bearing registration No. DL10CA9244.
That the witness also denied the suggestion that the respondent no.1 has been falsely implicated by the police in the present case.
That he is employed in a biscuit manufacturing factory at Ghaziabad and earning Rs.18,000/ per month.
That he had started alongwith his wife and son from Nizampur, Delhi after meeting his inlaw.
That his son Himanshu was going ahead on his scooty in which his wife was sitting as a pillion rider and he was following them on his separate scooty. That the distance between his scooty and his son's scooty was about 20 feet.
That there was no divider on the road where the accident had taken place.
That the position of scooty of his son was on the left side of the road.
That the speed of the scooty of his son was about 8 to 10 KMPH and the speed of his scooty was also same and has voluntary explained that the place of accident was turning point of the road.
Raj Narayan & ors. Vs. Shahid & Ors., MACT No. 281/2019, Award dated 06.03.2021 Page No. 7 of 34 Digitally signed by KAMINI LAU KAMINI LAU Date: 2021.03.06 17:23:28 +0530
That he had seen the offending vehicle at the moment when it hit the scooty of his son.
That the offending car hit against the right side of the scooty at its middle portion.
That the distance between the two scooty's was about 8 to 10 feet at the time of accident.
That the offending vehicle fled away after causing the accident.
That he had noted down the registration number of the offending vehicle immediately at the moment when it caused the accident.
That after the accident, he did not call the police but he removed his wife to the nearby hospital i.e. Shivam Hospital, Bahadurgarh and thereafter, she was shifted to PGIMS Rohtak.
That the police officials met him at P.G.I.M.S. Rohtak on the date of accident where his statement was recorded by the police.
That the registration number of the offending vehicle was also informed by him to the police on the very same day.
That his wife was 9th Class passed as she could not complete her 10th class.
That he has not brought any documents regarding the education of his deceased wife.
That he does not have any documentary proof to show that his wife was earning Rs.15,000/ to Rs.20,000/ per month at the time of the accident. That his wife was doing the work of cutting and stitching for the last 10 to 12 years.
That his wife was having a bank account in her name, however, he has not brought the bank passbook of his deceased wife.
Respondent's witness:
2. Shahid (R1W1) R1W1 Shahid is the respondent no.1/ Driver of the offending vehicle, who in his examinationinchief by way of affidavit Ex.R1W1/A has corroborated what he has earlier stated in his written statement/ reply to the claim petition.
He has placed his reliance upon his Driving License which is Ex.R1W1/1 (mentioned as Ex.DW1/2 in the affidavit of evidence).
Raj Narayan & ors. Vs. Shahid & Ors., MACT No. 281/2019, Award dated 06.03.2021 Page No. 8 of 34 Digitally signed by KAMINI LAU KAMINI LAU Date: 2021.03.06 17:23:43 +0530
In his cross examination by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner, the witness has deposed as under: That he is facing trial in the criminal case registered by the police after the accident in question on 26.08.2018.
That he is on bail in the said criminal case.
That he has not filed any complaint against his false involvement to the police authority or Court. That when he was driving the vehicle i.e. car both the injured and the deceased who were on a two wheeler scooter, were not wearing helmet.
That he had left the spot of accident immediately after the accident.
That the witness has denied the suggestion that soon after the accident he did not notice whether the injured and deceased were wearing helmet.
That the police did not seize any helmet from the place of accident.
FINDINGS & OBSERVATIONS:
(9) I have heard the arguments advanced before me by the Ld. Counsels for the parties. I have also gone through the written memorandum of arguments filed on behalf of the petitioners and the respondent no.3 and gave my thoughtful consideration to their contentions. My findings on the various issues are under:
Issue No.1: Whether the claim petition of the petitioners is bad for nonjoinder of necessary parties as the owner and insurer of the scooty No. UP70T3855 have not been made parties?
(10) Onus of proving this issue was upon the respondent no.3 i.e. Go Digit General Insurance Co. Ltd. In its reply/ written statement the respondent no.3 has taken a preliminary objection that the petition is bad Raj Narayan & ors. Vs. Shahid & Ors., MACT No. 281/2019, Award dated 06.03.2021 Page No. 9 of 34 Digitally signed by KAMINI LAU KAMINI LAU Date: 2021.03.06 17:23:49 +0530 for nonjoinder of necessary parties since the owner and insurer of scooty bearing No. UP70T3855 are also the necessary parties to the proceedings who have not been made parties to the present petition. (11) In order to discharge the onus upon them, the Insurance Company has not examined any witness to prove the same. It has not been mentioned in the Written Statement of respondent no.3 Insurance Company as to who is the owner of the scooty bearing No. UP70T 3855 and who is the Insurer of the same and how they are the necessary parties to the present claim petition. In fact, perusal of the record shows that the accidental scooty has the registration no. DL8SBH8333. It appears that the respondent no.3 Insurance Company has abandoned the issue which is accordingly Disposed Off as not pressed.
Issue No.2 Whether the deceased Smt. Rashmi had expired on account of the injuries sustained in the road accident which took place on 26.08.2018 at about 2.40 PM at Bahad Rakba Kulasi Moor, Village Kanonda, Haryana due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing No. DL10CA9244 by the respondent no.1 Shahid?
(12) Onus of proving the above issue was upon the petitioners. The case of the petitioners is that on 26.08.2018 at around 2.40 PM, Smt. Rashmi (since deceased) was coming to her house by Scooty bearing registration No. UP70T3855 which was being driven by her son Himanshu at a normal speed and on the correct side of the road. When they reached near Bahad Rakba Kulasi Moor, Village Kanoda Haryana, a Car bearing registration No. DL10CA9244, which was being driven Raj Narayan & ors. Vs. Shahid & Ors., MACT No. 281/2019, Award dated 06.03.2021 Page No. 10 of 34 Digitally signed by KAMINI LAU KAMINI LAU Date: 2021.03.06 17:23:59 +0530 by its driver i.e. respondent no.1 at a very high speed, rashly, negligently, in a zigzag manner, without taking proper lookouts, violating the traffic rules and without blowing any horn, came from village Ladrawan side and hit the Scooty bearing registration No. UP 70T3855, with a great force. As a result of the impact Smt. Rashmi and Himanshu fell down on the road and sustained Grievous injuries. Smt. Rashmi was immediately taken to Shivam Hospital from where she was referred to PGIMS Rohtak and declared as "brought dead" after which her postmortem was conducted at mortuary PGIMS Hospital Rohtak, Haryana.
(13) In so far as the respondent no.1 Shahid (Driver) and respondent no.2 (Rajan Dabla) are concerned, they have denied that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the respondent no.1. According to the respondents no.1 and 2, their vehicle was duly insured with the respondent no.3 at the time of alleged accident and the respondent no.1 was having valid driving license, at the time of the alleged accident.
(14) The respondent no.3 M/s. Go Digit General Insurance Co. Ltd. concedes that the alleged offending vehicle bearing No. DL10CA 9244 was insured in the name of the respondent no.2 Rajan Dabla vide policy No. D000488186 issued for the period 12.06.2018 to 11.06.2019. The Insurance Company has taken all the statutory defence available to them and it is alleged that the deceased had sustained fatal injuries due to negligence on the part of his son while driving the scooty on which the deceased was traveling as pillion rider.
Raj Narayan & ors. Vs. Shahid & Ors., MACT No. 281/2019, Award dated 06.03.2021 Page No. 11 of 34 Digitally signed by KAMINI LAU KAMINI LAU Date: 2021.03.06 17:24:06 +0530 (15) I have gone through the testimonies of the various witnesses and
the records of the case including the certified copy of the charge sheet. It is evident from the certified copy of the chargesheet which is Ex.PW1/6 that pursuant to the accident in question, an FIR bearing No. 589/2018 was registered at Police Station Sadar Bahadurgarh under Sections 279,337,338,304A IPC which was registered on the basis of statement of Raj Narayan husband of deceased Rashmi.
(16) In so far as the identity of the respondent no.1 Shahid as the Driver of the offending vehicle i.e. car bearing No. DL10CA9244 is concerned, the same is not disputed. In his statement under Section 165 of Evidence Act the respondent no.1 Shahid has admitted that he was the driver of the offending vehicle i.e. car bearing No. DL10CA9244 which was involved in the accident on 26.08.2018. According to him, the accident did not occur due to his rash and negligent driving as all of a sudden a scooter came in front of his car since there was a blind curve. The respondent no.1 has not denied his presence at the spot of accident. It is an admitted case of the respondent no.1 that he had left the spot immediately after the accident. I hereby hold that the identity of the respondent no.1 Shahid as driver of car bearing No. DL10CA9244 stands established. (17) Coming next to the injuries caused to the deceased Smt. Rashmi, it is not disputed that she had expired in the accident which fact also stands established from the Postmortem Report attested copy of which is placed on record (chargesheet Ex.PW1/7).
Raj Narayan & ors. Vs. Shahid & Ors., MACT No. 281/2019, Award dated 06.03.2021 Page No. 12 of 34 Digitally signed by KAMINI LAU KAMINI LAU Date: 2021.03.06 17:24:32 +0530 (18) Now coming to the aspect of Rashness and Negligence so
attributed to the respondent no.1 Shahid, in order to prove his case the petitioner no.1 Raj Narayan has examined himself as PW1 wherein he has placed his reliance upon the following documents:
1. Photocopy of Aadhar Card of the deceased which is Mark A.
2. Copy of death certificate of the deceased which is Ex.PW1/2.
3. Photocopy of certificate (cutting & stitching) issued by Nehru Yuva Kendra, Nangloi, Delhi which is Mark B.
4. Photocopy of Aadhar Card of Raj Narayan which is Ex.PW1/4.
5. Photocopy of Aadhar Card of Himanshu which is Ex.PW1/5.
6. Photocopy of Aadhar Card of Ms. Chanchal which is Mark C.
7. Certified copy of the chargesheet of criminal case which is Ex.PW1/7 (Page No. 1 to 17).
(19) The witness Raj Narayan (PW1) who was on his separate scooty at the time of accident, has explained that he was at a distance of 20 feet on the road where there was no divider. According to him, they were at a speed of 8 to 10 KMPH at the time of accident. He has specifically stated that he had seen the offending vehicle was being driven by the respondent no.1 at a very high speed, rashly, negligently, in a zigzag manner, without taking necessary precautions, without proper lookouts, violating the traffic rules and without blowing any horn and hit the scooty of his son in which accident his wife Smt. Rashmi had expired and his son Himanshu had sustained Grievous Injuries.
Raj Narayan & ors. Vs. Shahid & Ors., MACT No. 281/2019, Award dated 06.03.2021 Page No. 13 of 34 Digitally signed by KAMINI LAU KAMINI LAU Date: 2021.03.06 17:24:50 +0530 (20) The Mechanical Inspection Reports of both the vehicles confirm
that in so far as the offending vehicle i.e. DL10CA9244 is concerned, its Right side bumper, Head light and front glass were broken; front bonnet, front wheel guard & glass frame were bent and the front tyre & tube were cracked. Further, as per the Mechanical Inspection Report of accidental scooty bearing No. DL8SBH8333 its Right side front chasis, front wheel mudguard and side cover were bent. The manner in which the front tyre and tube of the offending vehicle were found cracked, speaks for itself and corroborates the version of Raj Narayan (PW1). The impact was so huge that Smt. Rashmi had expired in the accident whereas Himanshu had sustained Grievous Injuries.
(21) As a general rule, the petitioner is required to prove negligence but in certain cases where the injured is only able to prove the accident but is unable to prove the origin of negligence due to his physical disability, then under the given circumstances the principle of res ipsa loquitur if found applicable, can always be considered. Sir William Erle in the case of Scott vs. London & St. Katherine Docks Co. reported in (1865) 3 HC 596 applied the said principle and observed as under:
".....Where the thing is shown is under the management of the defendant or his servants and the accident is such, as in the ordinary course of things does not happen, if those who have the management use proper care. Then in the absence of any explanation by the defendant, it can be presumed that the accident arose for want of care. In such cases mere happening of the accident affords a reasonable evidence in the absence of any explanation by the defendant that it was due to the Raj Narayan & ors. Vs. Shahid & Ors., MACT No. 281/2019, Award dated 06.03.2021 Page No. 14 of 34 Digitally signed by KAMINI LAU KAMINI LAU Date: 2021.03.06 17:24:58 +0530 negligence of the defendant......"
(22) This doctrine of res ipsa loquitur squarely applies to the facts of the present case as no evidence to the contrary has come on record. (23) Ld. Counsel for the Insurance Company has vehemently argued that the deceased was not wearing any helmet at the time of the accident since the postmortem report shows that she had sustained injuries on her head region and hence, 25% of the compensation amount be deducted from the total amount of compensation towards contributory negligence. Reliance has been placed upon the testimony of respondent no.1 Shahid who in his crossexamination stated that both the injured and the deceased were not wearing helmets.
(24) I have considered the arguments raised before me. No doubt, as per the postmortem report, the deceased had sustained head injuries, yet there is nothing on record to show that there was any negligence on the part of the driver of the scooty namely Himanshu. I may also note that neither the photographs of the site have been placed on record nor there is anything in the chargesheet that police have lifted the helmets from the spot and none of the police officials who are the part of investigations have claimed that they recovered any helmets. I also note that even if this plea is taken as correct, then the contributory negligence on the part of Smt. Rashmi and Himanshu was only 10%. I hereby hold that out of the total compensation amount, there shall be a deduction of 10% towards Contributory Negligence.
Raj Narayan & ors. Vs. Shahid & Ors., MACT No. 281/2019, Award dated 06.03.2021 Page No. 15 of 34 Digitally signed by KAMINI LAU KAMINI LAU Date: 2021.03.06 17:25:05 +0530 (25) In the light of the above, I hereby hold that Smt. Rashmi had
expired on account of the injuries sustained in the road accident which took place on 26.08.2018 at about 2.40 PM at Bahad Rakba Kulasi Moor, Village Kanonda, Haryana due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing No. DL10CA9244 by the respondent no.1 Shahid. (26) Issue is accordingly decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
Issue No.3: Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation?
If yes, as to what extent and from whom?
(27) Onus of proving this issue was upon the petitioners. In so far as the aspect of compensation is concerned, the petitioners are claiming a total compensation to the tune of Rs.40,00,000/ (Rupees Forty Lacs) whereas the respondent no.3 Insurance Company has not offered any amount.
(28) In order to prove his case the petitioner no.1 Raj Narayan has examined himself as PW1 and the respondent no.1 Shahid has examined himself as RW1 whereas no evidence has been led on behalf of the Insurance Company.
(29) The case of Sarla Verma & Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Another, reported in (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121, was reiterated by the Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. decided on 31.10.2017 and laid down general principles relating to computation of compensation in death cases, which are as under:
Raj Narayan & ors. Vs. Shahid & Ors., MACT No. 281/2019, Award dated 06.03.2021 Page No. 16 of 34 Digitally signed by KAMINI LAU KAMINI LAU Date: 2021.03.06 17:25:11 +0530 "........18. Basically only three facts need to be established by the claimants for assessing compensation in the case of death:
(a) age of the deceased;
(b) income of the deceased; and
(c) the number of dependents.
The issues to be determined by the Tribunal to arrive at the loss of dependency are:
(i) additions/deductions to be made for arriving at the income;
(ii) the deduction to be made towards the personal living expenses of the deceased; and
(iii) the multiplier to be applied with reference to the age of the deceased.
If these determinations are standardized, there will be uniformity and consistency in the decisions. There will be lesser need for detailed evidence. It will also be easier for the Insurance Companies to settle accident claims without delay.
19. To have uniformity and consistency, the Tribunals should determine compensation in cases of death, by the following well settled steps:
Step1 (Ascertaining the multiplicand) The income of the deceased per annum should be determined. Out of the said income a deduction should be made in regard to the amount which the deceased would have spent on himself by way of personal and living expenses. The balance, which is considered to be the contribution to the dependent family, constitutes the multiplicand.
Step2
(Ascertaining the multiplier)
Raj Narayan & ors. Vs. Shahid & Ors., MACT No. 281/2019, Award dated 06.03.2021 Page No. 17 of 34
Digitally signed by KAMINI LAU
KAMINI LAU Date: 2021.03.06 17:25:26
+0530
Having regard to the age of the deceased and period of active career, the appropriate multiplier should be selected. This does not mean ascertaining the number of years he would have lived or worked but for the accident. Having regard to several imponderables in life and economic factors, a table of multiplier with reference to the age has been identified by this Court. The multiplier should be chosen from the said table with reference to the age of the deceased.
Step3 (Actual Calculation) The annual contribution to the family (multiplicand) when multiplied by such multiplier gives the 'loss of dependency' to the family.
Thereafter, a conventional amount in the range of Rs. 5,000/ to Rs.10,000/ may be added as loss of estates. Where the deceased is survived by his widow, another conventional amount in the range of Rs.5,000/ to Rs.10,000/ should be added under the head of loss of consortium. But no amount is to be awarded under the head of pain, suffering or hardship caused to the legal heirs of the deceased.
The funeral expenses, cost of transportation of the body (if incurred) and the cost of any medical treatment of the deceased before death (if incurred) should also be added....."
(30) Applying the settled principles to the facts of the present case, coming first to the age of the deceased. According to the petitioners, the age of the deceased Rashmi at the time of accident was Forty (40) years. Copy of Aadhar Card of the deceased which is Ex.PW1/1 has been placed on record according to which the year of birth of the deceased Rashmi was 1978.
Raj Narayan & ors. Vs. Shahid & Ors., MACT No. 281/2019, Award dated 06.03.2021 Page No. 18 of 34 Digitally signed by KAMINI LAU KAMINI LAU Date: 2021.03.06 17:25:34 +0530 (31) However, Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.3 Insurance Company has argued that the date of birth of the deceased as mentioned in her ration card is 01.01.1978 and therefore, she was aged 40 years plus on the date of the accident.
(32) I have duly considered the rival contentions. On 19.02.2021 when the Financial Statement of petitioner no.1 Raj Narayan was recorded by this Court, he clarified that the date of birth of his wife is of the year 1978 and in various documents her age has been shown in various months. He admitted that in the school certificate her date of birth is mentioned as 08.08.1978 whereas in the Ration Card, her date of birth is 01.01.1978 and in the Aadhar Card only the year 1978 is mentioned. Also, perusal of the postmortem report of the deceased Rashmi show that her age is mentioned as 40 years (approximately). There is no other document to prove the exact date of birth of the deceased. This being the background, I hold that the age of the deceased at the time of accident was not exceeding 40 years and hence, applying the criteria laid down in the case of Sarla Verma Vs. DTC (Supra) the multiplier applicable according to the age of deceased would be Fifteen (15).
(33) Now coming to the Income of the Deceased, I may observe that the petitioner has alleged that the deceased Smt. Rashmi was a Housewife and also working as a Cutting & Stitching Master at home and was earning Rs.15,000/ to Rs.20,000/ per month. He has relied upon copy of the certificate issued by Nehru Yuva Kendra, Nangloi, Delhi which is Mark B. I may note that original of the said certificate Raj Narayan & ors. Vs. Shahid & Ors., MACT No. 281/2019, Award dated 06.03.2021 Page No. 19 of 34 Digitally signed by KAMINI LAU KAMINI LAU Date: 2021.03.06 17:25:41 +0530 has not been produced in the Court nor the same has been proved by calling the concerned witness. I also observe that no Income Tax Return assessment has been placed on record. I am sure if the deceased was doing the work of stitching at home, she would have stitched the clothes of her neighbours and it was open for the petitioner to examine such persons as the witness to prove the same, which has not been done. Further, there is no disclosure of her income to any government authority. Under the given circumstances, I find it difficult to believe that the deceased Smt. Rashmi was earning Rs.20,000/ per month at home by doing the stitching work. However, it would be very unfair to totally deny the additional income of the deceased and I hereby hold that the minimum wages for unskilled labour applicable in Haryana as on the date of accident 26.08.2018 i.e. Rs.8,497/ (in terms of the Order of Labour Commissioner, Gurugram Haryana bearing No. IR02/24396 457 dated 28.08.2018) which is to be considered as the income of the deceased Rashmi.
(34) Further, it is not disputed that there are three Legal Representatives of the deceased Smt. Rashmi, detailed as under:
1. Sh. Raj Narayan (Husband) aged 52 years.
2. Sh. Himanshu (Son) aged 22 years.
3. Ms. Chanchal (Daughter) aged 20 years.
(35) In so far as the aspect of Deduction towards personal living expenses of the deceased is concerned, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that only 25% deductions should be made and in this Raj Narayan & ors. Vs. Shahid & Ors., MACT No. 281/2019, Award dated 06.03.2021 Page No. 20 of 34 Digitally signed by KAMINI LAU KAMINI LAU Date: 2021.03.06 17:25:50 +0530 regard he has placed his reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kirti & Anr. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. in Civil Appeal Nos. 1920 of 2021 decided on 05.01.2021. I have gone through the above judgment and I hold that it does not apply to the facts of the present case since in the said case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court the deceased Smt. Poonam was pregnant at the time of accident. Under the given circumstances, I hereby adopt the criteria laid down in the case of Sarla Verma Vs. DTC (Supra) and hold that deductions in the income of the deceased towards her living and personal expenses would be 1/3rd of her income. (36) Coming next to the Compensation under nonpecuniary heads, I may note that the judgment of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. reported in 2017 ACJ 2700 (SC) was considered and clarified by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 9581/2018 decided on 18.09.2018. After considering the Pranay Sethi's judgment, Hon'ble Supreme Court pleased to award loss of consortium of Rs.40,000/ to each dependent of the deceased and further pleased to award a compensation of Rs.50,000/ to each dependent of the deceased towards loss of love and affection, which I quote as under:
"...... A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) dealt with the various heads under which compensation is to be awarded in a death case. One of these heads is Loss of Consortium.
Raj Narayan & ors. Vs. Shahid & Ors., MACT No. 281/2019, Award dated 06.03.2021 Page No. 21 of 34 Digitally signed by KAMINI LAU KAMINI LAU Date: 2021.03.06 17:26:10 +0530
In legal parlance, "consortium" is a compendious term which encompasses 'spousal consortium', 'parental consortium', and 'filial consortium'.
The right to consortium would include the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, solace and affection of the deceased, which is a loss to his family. With respect to a spouse, it would include sexual relations with the deceased spouse.
Spousal consortium is generally defined as rights pertaining to the relationship of a husband wife which allows compensation to the surviving spouse for loss of "company, society, cooperation, affection, and aid of the other in every conjugal relation."
Parental consortium is granted to the child upon the premature death of a parent, for loss of "parental aid, protection, affection, society, discipline, guidance and training."
Filial consortium is the right of the parents to compensation in the case of an accidental death of a child. An accident leading to the death of a child causes great shock and agony to the parents and family of the deceased. The greatest agony for a parent is to lose their child during their lifetime. Children are valued for their love, affection, companionship and their role in the family unit.
Consortium is a special prism reflecting changing norms about the status and worth of actual relationships. Modern jurisdictions worldover have recognized that the value of a child's consortium far exceeds the economic value of the compensation awarded in the case of the death of a child. Most jurisdictions therefore permit parents to be awarded compensation under loss of consortium on the death of a child. The amount awarded to the parents is a Raj Narayan & ors. Vs. Shahid & Ors., MACT No. 281/2019, Award dated 06.03.2021 Page No. 22 of 34 Digitally signed by KAMINI LAU KAMINI LAU Date: 2021.03.06 17:26:20 +0530 compensation for loss of the love, affection, care and companionship of the deceased child.
The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation aimed at providing relief to the victims or their families, in cases of genuine claims. In case where a parent has lost their minor child, or unmarried son or daughter, the parents are entitled to be awarded loss of consortium under the head of Filial Consortium. Parental Consortium is awarded to children who lose their parents in motor vehicle accidents under the Act.
A few High Courts have awarded compensation on this count. However, there was no clarity with respect to the principles on which compensation could be awarded on loss of Filial Consortium.
The amount of compensation to be awarded as consortium will be governed by the principles of awarding compensation under 'Loss of Consortium' as laid down in Pranay Sethi (supra).
In the present case, we deem it appropriate to award the father and the sister of the deceased, an amount of Rs.40,000 each for loss of Filial Consortium....."
(37) In the said case, it was also argued before the Apex Court that High Court had wrongly awarded Rs. One Lac towards love and affection. However, the view of High Court was maintained by the Apex Court by holding that "the amount awarded by the High Court towards loss of love and affection, is, however, maintained." Since in the said case two persons were dependent on the deceased, Hon'ble Apex Court awarded Rs.50,000/ each amounting Rs. One lac towards Raj Narayan & ors. Vs. Shahid & Ors., MACT No. 281/2019, Award dated 06.03.2021 Page No. 23 of 34 Digitally signed by KAMINI LAU KAMINI LAU Date: 2021.03.06 17:26:27 +0530 loss of love and affection.
(38) Since all the petitioners were dependent upon the deceased, they are entitled for loss of love and affection also. In view of the above, a sum of Rs.15,000/ each is awarded towards loss of estate and funeral expenses. Further, a sum of Rs.50,000/ each towards loss of love and affection is also awarded to the petitioners. Also, Rs.1,00,000/ is awarded to the petitioner no.1 Raj Narayan for Spousal Consortium.
(39) Now coming to the Computation of compensation and by applying the settled guidelines as laid down in the various judgments as herein above, the compensation is calculated as under:
Sr. Head Amount (in Rs.) No. 1. Income of deceased (A) 8,497/ per month 2. Add future prospect (B) @ 40% = 3,398/
3. Less 1/3rd deductions towards 1/3rd of 11,895/ (8,497 + personal and living expenses of the 3,398) = 3,965/ deceased (C)
4. Monthly loss of dependency (8,497 + 3,398) - 3,965/ [(A+B) - C = D] = 7,930/
5. Annual loss of Dependency 7,930 x 12 = 95,160/ (D x 12) 6. Multiplier (E) 15
7. Total loss of dependency 95,160/ x 15 = 14,27,400/ DxE=F
8. Compensation for loss of love and Rs.50,000/ x 3 = 1,50,000/ affection (G) Raj Narayan & ors. Vs. Shahid & Ors., MACT No. 281/2019, Award dated 06.03.2021 Page No. 24 of 34 Digitally signed by KAMINI LAU KAMINI LAU Date: 2021.03.06 17:26:36 +0530
9. Compensation for loss of consortium 1,00,000/ (H)
10. Compensation for loss of Estate (I) 15,000/
11. Compensation for funeral expenses 15,000/ (J)
12. Total Compensation (F+G+H+I+J) 17,07,400/
13. Contributory Negligence @ 10% 10% of 17,07,400 = 1,70,740/
14. TOTAL 17,07,400 - 1,70,740 = 15,36,660/ Round Off: 15,36,700/ (40) Since, interest @ 9% per annum was awarded by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy reported in 2012 ACJ 48 (SC), it is held that claimants shall be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum from the date of Claim Petition i.e. from 09.04.2019 till realization of the amount.
Apportionment:
(41) As per the record, there are three legal heirs of the deceased Smt. Rashmi i.e. Raj Narayan (Husband), Himanshu (Son) and Chanchal (Daughter). The petitioner no.1 Raj Narayan being the husband of the deceased, he shall get 50% of the compensation amount.
In so far as the petitioner no.2 Himanshu is concerned, he himself is the injured in the accident and is being awarded compensation separately in the connected case for the injuries suffered by him. This being the Raj Narayan & ors. Vs. Shahid & Ors., MACT No. 281/2019, Award dated 06.03.2021 Page No. 25 of 34 Digitally signed by KAMINI LAU KAMINI LAU Date: 2021.03.06 17:26:52 +0530 background, his share in the present case would be 15%. The petitioner no.3 Ms. Chanchal shall get 35% of the compensation amount. For the sake of convenience, their individual shares are tabulated as under: Sr. Name of the Relation with Percentage of award Amount in No. claimant deceased amount (Rs.) 1 Raj Narayan Husband 50% 7,68,350/ 2 Himanshu Son 15% 2,30,505/ (An amount of Rs.3,58,920/ has also been awarded separately in MACT Case No. 282/2019) 3 Chanchal Daughter 35% 5,37,845/ Disbursement:
(42) The Financial Statement of the petitioner no.1 Sh. Raj Narayan was recorded by this Court according to which the monthly expenses of his family are about Rs.30,000/.
(43) Keeping in view the above, I hereby direct that in so far as the petitioner no.1 Sh. Raj Narayan (Husband of the deceased) is concerned on realization of the award amount, a sum of Rs.68,350/ plus entire interest amount be released to him from his share and the balance amount of Rs.7,00,000/ (Rupees Seven Lacs) shall be put in Seventy monthly fixed deposits in his name in MACAD account of equal amount of Rs.10,000/ (Rupees Ten Thousand only) each for a period of 01 month to 70 months respectively, with cumulative Raj Narayan & ors. Vs. Shahid & Ors., MACT No. 281/2019, Award dated 06.03.2021 Page No. 26 of 34 Digitally signed by KAMINI LAU KAMINI LAU Date: 2021.03.06 17:27:00 +0530 interest, in terms of the directions contained in FAO No. 842/2003 dated December 07, 2018. Besides the above said amount, amount of FDRs on maturity, shall automatically be transferred in his saving account maintained in a nationalized bank without the facility of cheque book and ATM card. It is clarified that the amount shall be released to him only on submitting the copy of passbook of such saving account with endorsement of the bank that no cheque book facility and ATM card has been issued or if has been issued, same has been withdrawn and same shall not be issued without the prior permission of this Tribunal.
However, the petitioner no.1 Sh. Raj Narayan shall have liberty to seek the release of Rs.68,350/ plus entire interest amount from the bank located within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal itself. (44) In so far as the petitioner no.2 Himanshu (son of the deceased) is concerned, on realization of the award amount, a sum of Rs.30,505/ be released to him from his share and the balance amount of Rs.2,00,000/ (Rupees Two Lacs) shall be put in Twenty monthly fixed deposits in his name in MACAD account of equal amount of Rs.10,000/ (Rupees Ten Thousand only) each for a period of 01 month to 20 months respectively, with cumulative interest, in terms of the directions contained in FAO No. 842/2003 dated December 07, 2018. Besides the above said amount, amount of FDRs on maturity, shall automatically be transferred in his saving account maintained in a nationalized bank without the facility of cheque book and ATM card. It is clarified that the amount shall be released to him only on submitting Raj Narayan & ors. Vs. Shahid & Ors., MACT No. 281/2019, Award dated 06.03.2021 Page No. 27 of 34 Digitally signed by KAMINI LAU KAMINI LAU Date: 2021.03.06 17:27:17 +0530 the copy of passbook of such saving account with endorsement of the bank that no cheque book facility and ATM card has been issued or if has been issued, same has been withdrawn and same shall not be issued without the prior permission of this Tribunal. However, Sh. Himanshu shall have liberty to seek the release of Rs.30,505/ from the bank located within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal itself. (45) In so far as the petitioner no.3 Chanchal (daughter of the deceased) is concerned, on realization of the award amount, a sum of Rs.37,845/ be released to her from her share and the balance amount of Rs.5,00,000/ (Rupees Five Lacs only) shall be put in Fifty monthly fixed deposits in her name in MACAD account of equal amount of Rs.10,000/ (Rupees Ten Thousand only) each for a period of 01 month to 50 months respectively, with cumulative interest, in terms of the directions contained in FAO No. 842/2003 dated December 07, 2018. Besides the above said amount, amount of FDRs on maturity, shall automatically be transferred in her saving account maintained in a nationalized bank without the facility of cheque book and ATM card. It is clarified that the amount shall be released to her only on submitting the copy of passbook of such saving account with endorsement of the bank that no cheque book facility and ATM card has been issued or if has been issued, same has been withdrawn and same shall not be issued without the prior permission of this Tribunal. However, Ms. Chanchal shall have liberty to seek the release of Rs.37,845/ from the bank located within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal itself.
Raj Narayan & ors. Vs. Shahid & Ors., MACT No. 281/2019, Award dated 06.03.2021 Page No. 28 of 34 Digitally signed by KAMINI LAU KAMINI LAU Date: 2021.03.06 17:27:24 +0530 (46) The above FDRs shall be prepared with the following
conditions as enumerated by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in FAO No. 842/2003 under the title Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaivir Singh & Ors. decided on December 07, 2018:
(i) The bank shall not permit any joint name to be added in the saving account or fixed deposit accounts of the claimants i.e. saving bank accounts of the claimants shall be an individual saving bank account and not a joint account.
(ii) Original fixed deposit shall be retained by the bank in safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by bank to the claimants.
(iii) The maturity amount of the FDRs be credited by the ECS in the saving bank account of the claimant near the place of their residence.
(iv) No loan, advance or withdrawal or premature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without the permission of the court.
(v) The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book and/or debit card to claimants. However, in case the debit card and/or cheque book have already been issued, bank shall cancel the same before the disbursement of the award amount. The bank shall debit card(s) freeze the account of claimants so that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of claimants from any other branch of the bank.
(vi) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the claimant to the effect, that no cheque Raj Narayan & ors. Vs. Shahid & Ors., MACT No. 281/2019, Award dated 06.03.2021 Page No. 29 of 34 Digitally signed by KAMINI LAU KAMINI LAU Date: 2021.03.06 17:27:31 +0530 books and/or debit card have been issued and shall not be issued without the permission of the Court and the claimant shall produced the passbook with the necessary endorsement before the Court for compliance.
(47) In compliance of the directions given by Hon'ble High court in FAO No. 842/2003 dated December 07, 2018, Summary of the Award in the prescribed FormatIV A is as under:
SUMMARY OF AWARD:
1. Date of Accident: 26.08.2018
2. Name of the deceased: Smt. Rashmi
3. Age of the deceased: 40 Years
4. Occupation of the deceased: Housewife
5. Income of the deceased: Rs.8,497/ per month (as per minimum wages in Haryana)
6. Name, Age and relationship of legal representatives of deceased:
Sr. No. Name Age Relation (i) Sh. Raj Narayan 52 years Husband ii) Sh. Himanhu 22 years Son iii) Ms. Chanchal 20 years Daughter Raj Narayan & ors. Vs. Shahid & Ors., MACT No. 281/2019, Award dated 06.03.2021 Page No. 30 of 34 Digitally signed by KAMINI LAU KAMINI LAU Date: 2021.03.06 17:27:41 +0530 COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION Sr. Head Awarded by the claims No. Tribunal 7 Income of deceased (A) 8,497/ per month 8 Add future prospect (B) @ 40% = 3,398/ 9 Less 1/3rd deductions towards 1/3rd of 11,895/ (8,497 +
personal and living expenses of the 3,398) = 3,965/ deceased (C) 10 Monthly loss of dependency (8,497 + 3,398) - 3,965/ [(A+B) - C = D] = 7,930/ 11 Annual loss of Dependency 7,930 x 12 = 95,160/ (D x 12) 12 Multiplier (E) 15 13 Total loss of dependency 95,160/ x 15 = 14,27,400/ DxE=F 14 Medical Expenses (G) Nil 15 Compensation for loss of love and Rs.50,000/ x 3 = 1,50,000/ affection (G) 16 Compensation for loss of 1,00,000/ consortium (H) 17 Compensation for loss of Estate (I) 15,000/ 18 Compensation for funeral expenses 15,000/ (J) 19 Total Compensation (F+G+H+I+J) 17,07,400/ Contributory Negligence @ 10% 10% of 17,07,400 = 1,70,740/ TOTAL 17,07,400 - 1,70,740 = 15,36,660/ Round Off: 15,36,700/ 20 RATE OF INTEREST 9% AWARDED Raj Narayan & ors. Vs. Shahid & Ors., MACT No. 281/2019, Award dated 06.03.2021 Page No. 31 of 34 Digitally signed by KAMINI LAU KAMINI LAU Date: 2021.03.06 17:27:56 +0530 21 Interest amount upto the date of 2,63,786/ award (M) (1 year, 10 months & 27 days) 22 Total amount including interest 18,00,486/ (L+M) 23 Award amount released As per paragraphs no. 43 to 45 24 Award amount kept in FDRs As per paragraphs no. 43 to 45 25 Mode of disbursement of the award As per paragraphs no. 43 to 45 amount to the claimant(s) (Clause 29) 26 Next Date of compliance of the 09.04.2021 award (Clause 31) Liability to Pay:
(48) Since the offending vehicle was being driven by respondent no.1 Shahid, respondent no.2 Rajan Dabla is the registered owner and the offending vehicle was insured with respondent no.3 Go Digit General Insurance Co., they all shall be jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners but since the vehicle was duly insured with respondent no.3 i.e. Go Digit General Insurance Co. as on the day of accident, it is respondent no.3 i.e. Go Digit General Insurance Co. who is ultimately held liable to indemnify the insurance and to pay the compensation amount to the petitioners under the statutory liability.
RELIEF:
(49) Since the offending vehicle was insured with the respondent no.3 Go Digit General Insurance Co. therefore, the respondent no.3 is Raj Narayan & ors. Vs. Shahid & Ors., MACT No. 281/2019, Award dated 06.03.2021 Page No. 32 of 34 Digitally signed by KAMINI LAU KAMINI LAU Date: 2021.03.06 17:28:03 +0530 directed to deposit a sum of Rs.15,36,700/ with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of Claim Petition i.e. 09.04.2019 till realization with the Civil Nazir of this Tribunal within 30 days under intimation to the petitioners failing which insurance company shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% per annum for the period of delay beyond 30 days.
(50) The Insurer of the offending vehicle is also directed to place on record the proof of deposit of the award amount, proof of delivery of notice in respect of deposit of the amount to the petitioner/claimant and complete detail in respect of calculation of interest etc. within 30 days. (51) A copy of this judgment be sent to the respondent No.3 i.e. Go Digit General Insurance Co. for compliance within the time granted.
Respondent No.3 i.e. Go Digit General Insurance Co. is further directed to give intimation of deposit of the compensation amount to the claimants and shall file a compliance report with the Claims Tribunal with respect to the deposit of the compensation amount within 15 days of the deposit with upto date interest with a copy to the counsel for claimants namely Sh. P.K. Mishra Advocate, Chamber No.K56, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, Mobile No. 9871465730. (52) Civil Nazir is directed to place a report on record on 09.04.2021 in the event of nonreceipt/deposit of the compensation amount within the time granted.
(53) In terms of clause 31 & 32 of the judgment titled Rajesh Tyagi & others Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. decided by Hon'ble High Court on Raj Narayan & ors. Vs. Shahid & Ors., MACT No. 281/2019, Award dated 06.03.2021 Page No. 33 of 34 Digitally signed by KAMINI LAU KAMINI LAU Date: 2021.03.06 17:28:11 +0530 December 12, 2014, copy of this award be sent to the concerned court of Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate and Secretary DLSA, Central District for information and necessary action.
(54) File be consigned to Record Room. Digitally signed by KAMINI LAU KAMINI LAU Date: 2021.03.06 17:28:20 +0530 Announced in the open court (Dr. KAMINI LAU) Dated: 06.03.2021 PO, MACT01 (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi Raj Narayan & ors. Vs. Shahid & Ors., MACT No. 281/2019, Award dated 06.03.2021 Page No. 34 of 34