Delhi District Court
Zubeda Khanam & Ors vs Ombir Singh & Ors on 24 May, 2015
IN THE COURT OF MS. MADHU JAIN, PRESIDING OFFICER: MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL: SOUTH EAST DISTRICT/
SAKET COURTS/NEW DELHI
Suit No: 336/13
FIR no. 472/2010
PSModi Nagar, Ghaziabad
Zubeda Khanam & Ors Vs Ombir Singh & Ors
Unique Identification number:02406C0362082013
FATAL CASE
1. Smt. Zubeda Khanam W/o Late Sh. Masihullah Khan (wife of deceased)
2. Smt. Anisha W/o Late Sh. Shafiulla Khan (mother of deceased)
3. Fareha D/o Late Sh. Masihullah Khan (daughter of deceased)
All are R/o House no. R236/5, Gali no. 5,
Joga Bai, Jamia Nagar, New Delhi110025
Also at : Mohalla Chauhan Bangar, Gali no. 2,
near Kalyan Cinema, Shahdara, Delhi110032
(Petitioner no. 3 being minors is represented by her mother and natural
guardian namely Zubeda Khanam, petitioner no.1).
...........................Petitioners/claimants
VERSUS
1. Sh. Om Bir Singh S/o Sh. Harbans Singh (driver)
R/o - Village Manoor, District Bulandshahar, U.P.
2. U.P. State Road Transport Corporation (owner)
U.P.Roadways, Meerut Depot, U.P. (through its Depot Manager )
Suit no. 336/13, Zubeda Khanam & Ors Vs Ombir Singh & Ors., (page no1 of 18)
...........Respondents
Date of Institution : 17.12.2013
Date of reserving judgment/order : 01.04.2015
Date of Pronouncement : 24.04.2015
JUDGMENT:
1. Present claim proceedings initiated on the basis of claim petition u/s 166/140 Motor Vehicle Act filed by the petitioner on 17.12.2013.
2. Petitioners/claimants in the present case are Smt. Zubeda Khanam wife of deceased Masihullah Khan, Fareha daughter of deceased and Smt. Anisha mother of deceased.
3. Brief facts of the case are that on 30.08.2010 at about 12.45am, deceased was sitting in a U.P. Roadways bus bearing registration number UP15AT1356 and was coming back to Delhi from Meerut and when the said bus reached at Delhi Meerut Road, near R.D. Foundation Group of Institution, Kadrabad, Modi Nagar, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, R1 driver hit the said bus with one stationary truck bearing registration no. UP15AT3551, due to sudden and forceful impact and rash and negligent driving of R1, deceased after breaking the glasses of the front window came out and fell on the road and crushed under the right front wheel of the bus, as a result of which deceased received fatal injuries and expired on the spot and his postmortem was conducted at District Hospital, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh.
4. An FIR no. 472/2010 u/s 279/337/338/304A IPC, PSModi Nagar, Ghaziabad Suit no. 336/13, Zubeda Khanam & Ors Vs Ombir Singh & Ors., (page no2 of 18) was registered. During investigation police collected the postmortem report of the deceased and arrested respondent no.1 driver. On completion of the investigation found respondent no.1 accused of rash and negligent driving, hence, chargesheeted him for the commission of offence u/s 279/337/338/304A Indian Penal Code.
5. During proceedings, written statement was filed by respondent no. 1. He took the plea that petitioner has filed petition on uncertified, manipulated facts and hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed with cost. He further took the plea that petitioners have no locus standi to file the present petition as the petitioners are not the legal representatives of the deceased, hence this petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. He further took the plea that this Tribunal has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present petition. It is submitted that at the time of accident, the deceased was residing at Village Amarpur, PS Khanpur, DistrictBulandshehar, Uttar Pradesh and accident also occurred at District Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh and petitioner did not produce any documents on that relevant time or period. He further took the plea that claimants only to get excessive compensation from Public Corporation, had obtained the residence proof of Delhi only in the year 2013, which shows from the documents filed by the petitioners itself, on this ground alone this petition is liable to be dismissed. He further took the plea that petition against the respondent is without any cause of action as there was no negligent driving on the part of the respondent no. 1. He further took the plea that on the 29/30.08.2010 at about 12.45am, when the bus reached near village Kadrabad, PSModi Nagar, there was a big hole on the road and the front wheel of bus got Suit no. 336/13, Zubeda Khanam & Ors Vs Ombir Singh & Ors., (page no3 of 18) into the hole and as the staring of the bus was jammed and respondent no. 1 tried to apply the break but the same could not be applied and bus was dashed against the truck, resulted into the said accident and some of the passengers sustained injuries. It is further submitted there was no fault on the part of the respondent no.1. He further took the plea that petitioner did not file any passenger ticket, which proved that the deceased was travelling in the said bus. He further took the plea that petitioner is not entitled to the amount of the compensation claimed or any other amount, however the amount as claimed is exorbitant, arbitrary and without any basis. He further took the plea that respondent no. 1 was driving the bus in a rash, careless negligent manner and at very high fast and violent speed, therefore, respondents are not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners.
6. During proceedings, written statement was also filed by respondent no. 2.
Respondent no. 2 took the same pleas as taken by respondent no. 1.
7. During inquiry following issues were framed by my Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 26.03.2014 which are as under:
1. Whether the deceased Masiullah Khan received fatal injuries in the accident which took place on 30.08.2010 at around 12.45 am involving offending vehicle i.e U.P.Roadways bus bearing number UP15AT1356 due to rash and negligent driving of respondent /driver (R1) and owned by respondent/owner (R2)? OPP
2. To what amount of compensation the petitioner is entitled to claim and Suit no. 336/13, Zubeda Khanam & Ors Vs Ombir Singh & Ors., (page no4 of 18) from whom ?
3. Relief.
8. Vide ordersheet dated 07.08.2014 petitioner is not entitled to interest till the conclusion of PE and PE was closed vide order dated 03.02.2015, therefore petitioner is not entitled for interest from 07.08.2014 to 03.02.2015.
9. During evidence petitioner Zubeida Khanam examined herself as PW1 and relied upon certain documents which were exhibited during course of her examination. In her cross examination she stated that she is not an eye witness to the accident. She further stated that she has not filed any ration card of her family. She further stated that she has not filed any documentary proof of income of her deceased husband and has also not filed any documents regarding residence.
10. Driver Om Veer Singh examined himself as R1W1. In his cross examination he stated that deceased Masi Ullah was sitting in the bus at the time of accident. He further stated that he can not say with certainty that whether the injured expired at the spot or not as he also sustained injuries.
11. After hearing arguments and considering the material on record, my issuewise finding is as follows:
Issue No.1 (Negligence):
12. PW1 Zubeda Khanam in her affidavit of evidence (Ex. PW1/A) stated that Suit no. 336/13, Zubeda Khanam & Ors Vs Ombir Singh & Ors., (page no5 of 18) deceased Masiullah Khan suffered fatal injuries while travelling in the offending vehicle, driven by respondent no. 1 in rash and negligence manner. Though, she is not an eye witness, her statement was duly corroborated by police investigation. Police during investigation also found respondent no. 1 accused of rash and negligent driving, hence chargesheeted him for commission of offence under section 279/337/338/304A Indian Penal Code.
13. Respondent no. 1 in his written statement himself has admitted that he was driving the offending vehicle and bus was on plying on its route from Rishikesh to Delhi. He has further stated that when the bus reached near Kadrabad, police stationModi Nagar, there was a big hole on the road. The front wheel of bus got struck into the hole and the staring of the bus was jammed and respondent no. 1 tried to apply the brake but the same could not applied and bus was dashed against the truck which resulted in the accident and the some of the passengers sustained injuries. He further stated that there was no fault on his part. Respondent no. 1 himself has stated that there was a big hole on the road. If he would have been careful in driving of the bus, he could have easily avoided that big hole on the road. But it seems that without caring he kept on driving the bus with a result the front wheel of the bus got struck into the hole. The whole scenario of the accident which he has described in his written statement, only point to the negligence of the respondent no. 1.
14. To determine the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle, I am also being guided by the judgment of Hon'ble High Court (MP) in case titled as "Basant Kaur & Ors Vs. Chattar Pal Singh and Ors" [2003 ACJ 369 MP Suit no. 336/13, Zubeda Khanam & Ors Vs Ombir Singh & Ors., (page no6 of 18) (DB)], wherein it has been held that registration of a criminal case against the driver of the offending vehicle is enough to record the finding that the driver of offending vehicle is responsible for causing the accident. Further it has been held in catena of cases that the proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act are not akin to the proceedings as in civil suit and hence strict rules of evidence are not required to be followed in this regard. I am also being guided by the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in "National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pushpa Rana" (2009 ACJ 287), wherein it was held that in case the petitioner files the certified copy of the criminal record or the criminal record showing the completion of the investigation by the police or the issuance of charge sheet under Section 279/304 A IPC or the certified copy of the FIR or in addition the recovery memo or the mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle, these documents are sufficient proof to reach to the conclusion that the driver was negligent. It is also settled law that the term rashness and negligence has to be constructed lightly while making a decision on a petition for claim for the same as compared to the word rashness and negligence as finds mention in the Indian Penal Code. This is because the chapter in the Motor Vehicle Act dealing with compensation is a benevolent legislation and not a penal one. Apex court in case titled N.K. V. Bros (P) Ltd. Vs. M. Karumai Ammal & ors (AIR 1980 SC 1354) observed that accident Tribunal must take special care to see that innocent victims do not suffer and drivers and owners do not escape liability merely because of some 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.
Suit no. 336/13, Zubeda Khanam & Ors Vs Ombir Singh & Ors., (page no7 of 18)
15. In view of the above discussion, petitioner has been able to prove that deceased suffered fatal injuries due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent no.1 Accordingly the issue no. 1 is decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
Issue no. 2 Compensation:
16. Apex Court in Sarla Verma Vs. DTC (AIR 2009 SC 3104) comprehensively dealt with the relevant principals relating to the assessment of compensation in death cases. Apex Court in this case observed that in fatal accident, the measure of damage is pecuniary loss suffered or likely to be suffered by each dependent as a result of death, and basically only three facts need to be established by the claimants for assessing compensation in case of death: (a) age of the deceased or claimant whichever is higher, (b) income of the deceased and (c) number of dependents.
17. Age of the deceased Masi Ullah Khan: PW1 in her affidavit of evidence stated that deceased was aged around 38 years at the time of accident and to substantiate the age of deceased, petitioner relied upon copy of election I card (Ex. PW1/2) of deceased where it is mentioned that deceased was aged around 23 years on 01.01.1995. In the present case, the accident occurred on 30.08.2010. PW1 Zubeda Khanam, wife of deceased has been examined in the court on 03.02.2015 when she stated her age about 33 years old. Thus, at the time of accident she was aged around 28 years old. In these circumstances, age of the deceased is assessed around 38 years at the time of accident. Thus, Suit no. 336/13, Zubeda Khanam & Ors Vs Ombir Singh & Ors., (page no8 of 18) applicable multiplier according to Sarla Verma case is 15.
18. Income: Petitioner in her claim petition stated that her deceased husband was working as a welder by profession and doing the private work of welding for last more than 5 years and earning Rs. 10,000/ per month. It is also stated in the claim petition that father of deceased has expired and deceased himself was maintaining his family apart from maintaining two young sisters and old mother. But she has not filed any documentary proof regarding his income and work, hence his income is to be assessed under Minimum Wages. Minimum wages rates applicable for unskilled labour on the date of accident i.e 30.08.2010 are Rs. 5273/ hence the income of the deceased is assessed at Rs. 5273/ per month.
19. Dependents: PW1 Zubeda Khanam in her affidavit of evidence stated that she herself is aged about 33 years, her mother in law Anisha aged about 81 years and Fareha daughter of deceased aged about 4 years are dependents upon the deceased. Besides the persons as named herein, there is no other legal heir of the deceased. From the material on records, all petitioners are found to be dependent upon the deceased at the time of death of deceased. Hence, total number of dependents are found three.
20. Deduction for personal and living expenses: Deceased was having three dependents at the time of accident, in view of Sarla Verma Case, 1/3 of the income is to be deducted towards deduction on personal and living Suit no. 336/13, Zubeda Khanam & Ors Vs Ombir Singh & Ors., (page no9 of 18) expenses.
21. Future prospects: Deceased was aged around 38 years at the time of accident and his income is assessed under minimum wages act, thus, entitled for 50% increase towards future prospects. {relied upon Rajesh & Ors. Vs. Rajbir Singh 2013 (6) SCALE 563, Puskar Mehra Vs. Brij Mohan Kushwaha & Ors 2013 (14) SCALE 26, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Vs. Angrej Singh & Ors. MAC. Appeal 846/2011 dated 30/09/2013 (Delhi High Court)}.
22. Loss of dependency: (Rs. 5273+ Rs. 5273X50%) X12X1/3X15=Rs. 4,74,570/
23. Hon'ble apex court in case titled 'Rajesh & Ors. Vs. Rajbir Singh & ors.
2013(6) SCALE 563", directed Tribunals that irrespective of the claims made in the application, the Tribunals are required to award compensation which should be just equitable and reasonable. In this regard, the Hon'ble apex court revisited the amount of compensation under conventional heads of loss of consortium , loss of love and affection and funeral expenses. Apex court in para no. 20 & 21 held as under:
20 "The ratio of a decision of this Court, on a legal issue is a precedent. But an observation made by this Court, mainly to achieve uniformity and consistency on a socioeconomic issue, as contrasted from a legal principle, though a precedent, can be, and in fact ought to be periodically revisited, as observed in Santosh Devi (Supra). We may, therefore, revisit the practice of awarding Suit no. 336/13, Zubeda Khanam & Ors Vs Ombir Singh & Ors., (page no10 of 18) compensation under conventional heads: loss of consortium to the spouse, loss of love , care and guidance to children and funeral expense. It may be noted that the sum of Rs. 2,500/ to Rs. 10,000/ in those heads was fixed several decades ago and having regard to inflation factor, the same needs to be increased. In Sarla Verma's case (Supra), it was held that compensation for loss of consortium should be in the range of Rs. 5000/ to Rs. 10,000/. In Legal parlance, 'consortium' is the right of the spouse to the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, society, solace, affection and sexual relations with his or her mate. That nonpecuniary head of damage has not been properly understood by our Courts. The loss of companionship, love, care and protection, etc., the spouse is entitled to get, has to be compensated appropriately. The concept of nonpecuniary damage for loss of consortium is one of the major heads of award of compensation in other parts of the world more particularly in the United States of America, Australia, etc. English Courts have also recognized the right of a spouse to get compensation even during the period of temporary disablement. By loss of consortium, the courts have made an attempt to compensate the loss of spouse's affection, comfort, solace, companionship, society, assistance, protection, care and sexual relations during the future years. Unlike the compensation awarded in other countries and other jurisdictions, since the legal heirs are otherwise adequately compensated for the pecuniary loss, it would not be proper to award a major amount under this head. Hence, we are of the view that it would only be just and reasonable that the courts award at least rupees one lakh for loss of consortium.
Suit no. 336/13, Zubeda Khanam & Ors Vs Ombir Singh & Ors., (page no11 of 18)
21. We may also take judicial notice of the fact that the Tribunals have been quite frugal with regard to award of compensation under the head of 'funeral Expenses'. The 'Price Index', it is a fact has gone up in that regard also. The head 'Funeral Expenses' does not mean the fee paid in the crematorium or fee paid for the use of space in the cemetery. There are many other expenses in connection with funeral and if the deceased is follower of any particular religion, there are several religious practices and conventions pursuant to death in a family. All those are quite expensive. Therefore, we are of the view that it will be just, fair and equitable, under the head of 'Funeral Expenses', in the absence of evidence to the contrary for higher expenses, to award at least an amount of Rs. 25,000/.
24. Funeral Expenses: Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case and the mandate of the above judgment, a sum of Rs. 25000/ is granted towards funeral expenses.
25. Loss of love and affection: In present case, deceased was survived with a wife, minor daughter alongwith old aged mother. Thus, total sum of Rs.2,00,000/ is granted to petitioners towards loss of love and affection.
26. Loss of Consortium: Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case and the mandate of the above judgment, a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/is granted towards loss of consortium.
Suit no. 336/13, Zubeda Khanam & Ors Vs Ombir Singh & Ors., (page no12 of 18)
27. Loss of Estate: The petitioners are also entitled for loss of estate in respect of death of the deceased. Accordingly, an amount of Rs. 50,000/ is passed in favour of the petitioners towards loss of estate.
28. The total compensation is assessed as under: S.No. Description Amount 1 Loss of Dependency Rs. 4,74,570/ 2 Loss of Love & Affection Rs. 2,00,000/ 3 Loss of consortium Rs. 1,00,000/ 4 Funeral expenses Rs. 25,000/ 5 Loss of Estate Rs. 50,000/ Total Rs. 8,49,570/ Hence, the petitioners are awarded a total amount of Rs. 8,49,570/ (Rupees Eight lacs forty nine thousand five hundred seventy only). RELIEF:
29. I hereby award an amount of Rs. 8,49,570/ (Rupees Eight lacs forty nine thousand five hundred seventy only) as compensation with interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of filing the present petition, i.e., till the date of realization of the amount, in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents on account of their liability being joint and several. (excluding interest from 07.08.2014 to 03.02.2015).
30. The driver R1 is the principal tort feasor whereas R2 being the owner Suit no. 336/13, Zubeda Khanam & Ors Vs Ombir Singh & Ors., (page no13 of 18) vicariously liable for the acts of the R1.
31. Liability: Respondent no. 2/Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation is the owner of the offending vehicle i.e bus bearing number UP15AT1356.
Respondent no. 1 Ombir Singh is their employee who was driving the offending vehicle at the time of accident. There is no defence taken by respondent no. 2 except for the fact that petitioner has not proved her petition as per law or that the present petition has been filed by the petitioner only to get the excess claim as the petitioner, her child and the mother of the deceased, all are living in Uttar Pradesh. However respondent no. 2 has failed to prove this contention. It was the respondent no. 2 who has taken this plea , therefore it was their duty to prove this fact. Even in copy of FIR (Mark O) filed on record the address of the deceased is given as that of Delhi which clearly shows that deceased was living at the time of accident in Delhi. Petitioner has proved her election card (Ex. PW1/4) which shows her address of Delhi. Even her adhar card (Ex. PW1/5) depicts her address as of Jamia Nagar, New Friends Colony, New Delhi which shows that she is residents of Delhi and has every right to file her claim petition in Delhi. The factum of accident has also been admitted by Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation which has the liability to make the payment of compensation to the LRs of deceased. It is very strange a government department which is running full fleet of buses on the roads has not shown any sympathy towards the LRs of the deceased.
32. In view of the above discussion, respondent no. 2 is directed to discharge the liability of the award amount within a period of 30 days from today alongwith Suit no. 336/13, Zubeda Khanam & Ors Vs Ombir Singh & Ors., (page no14 of 18) the interest @ 9% per annum, failing which interest @ 12% per annum shall be charged for the period of delay.
Release of awarded amount:
33. Share of petitioner no.1 (Smt. Zubeda Khanam, wife of deceased): Out of total sum of Rs. 8,49,570/, a sum of Rs. 5,49,540/ alongwith proportionate interest thereon, is awarded to the petitioner no.1 being wife of the deceased. Out of this amount, Rs. 2,49,540/ alongwith proportionate interest be immediately released to the petitioner no.1 on realization. And for balance amount of Rs. 3,00,000/ alongwith proportionate interest thereon be kept in form of FDR in the following phased manner :
1.Rs. 1 lac for period of 1 year
2. Rs. 1 lac for period of 2 years
3. Rs. 1 lac for period of 3 years
34. In the share of petitioner no. 2 (Smt. Anisha mother of deceased): A sum of Rs. 1,00,000/ alongwith proportionate interest thereon, is awarded to the petitioner no.2 being mother of deceased. Out of this amount, Rs. 50,000/ alongwith proportionate interest be immediately released to the petitioner no.2 on realization. And for balance amount of Rs. 50,000/ alongwith proportionate interest thereon be kept in form of FDR in the following phased manner :
1.Rs. 50,000/ for period of 1 year.
35. Share of petitioner no. 3 (Fareha minor daughter of deceased) A sum of Suit no. 336/13, Zubeda Khanam & Ors Vs Ombir Singh & Ors., (page no15 of 18) Rs. 2,00,000/ alongwith proportionate interest is awarded to the petitioner no. 3 which is to be kept in form of FDR till she attains the age of 21 years.
36. Deposition of awarded amount with STATE BANK OF INDIA, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi.
37. 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 08.06.2009, UCO Bank/State Bank of India has agreed to open a Special Fixed Deposit Account for the victims of road accidents.
38. 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 Vs. Nanisiri" bearing MAC 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.
39. 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, respondent no. 2/ UPSRTC 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 respondent no.2 shall be liable to pay future interest @ 12% per annum till realization (for Suit no. 336/13, Zubeda Khanam & Ors Vs Ombir Singh & Ors., (page no16 of 18) the delayed period).
40. 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:
(i) 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.
(ii) Withdrawal from the aforesaid account shall be permitted to claimant/ petitioner after due verification and the Bank shall issue photo identity Card to claimant/ petitioner to facilitate identity.
(iii) No cheque book be issued to claimant/ petitioner 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 claimant/ petitioner alongwith photocopy of the FDR's.
(v) The original fixed deposit receipts shall be handed over to claimant/ petitioner 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.
(vii) Half yearly statement of account be filed by the Bank in this court.
(viii) On the request of claimant/ petitioner, the Bank shall transfer the Savings Account to any other branch of State Bank of India, according to their convenience.
Suit no. 336/13, Zubeda Khanam & Ors Vs Ombir Singh & Ors., (page no17 of 18)
(ix) 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.
41. Directions for the respondent No. 2: The Respondent no. 2 is directed to file the compliance report of their having deposited the awarded amount with the State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch in this tribunal within a period of 30 days from today.
42. The Respondent no. 2 shall intimate to the claimants/ petitioners about it having deposited the cheques in favour of 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.
43. Copy of the order be given dasti to all the parties.
44. Put up the matter for compliance on 25.05.2015.
Announced in the Open court on 24.04.2015 (Madhu Jain) POMACT02 (South East District) Saket Courts, New Delhi/24.04.2015 Suit no. 336/13, Zubeda Khanam & Ors Vs Ombir Singh & Ors., (page no18 of 18)