Delhi District Court
Firoja vs Pushpender (Driver) on 24 December, 2019
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHUCHI LALER, PRESIDING OFFICER-
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, SHAHDARA DISTRICT,
KKD, DELHI
MACT No. 2218/16
In the matter of:
1. Firoja
W/o Sh. Julfikar
2. Julfikar
S/o Sh. Badaliddin
3. Fatma
D/o Sh. Julfikar
4. Farha
D/o Sh. Julfikar
5. Faizan
S/o Sh. Julfikar
All are resident of
H.No. B-258, Gali no. 10,
Bhopura, Sahibabad, UP ....Petitioners
Versus
1. Pushpender (Driver)
S/o Sh. Sadhu Singh
R/o Village Yadgar Pur, Mirachi,
Distt. Etah, UP ....Respondent no. 1
2. Mohit Nischal (Owner) S/o Sh. Rakesh Kumar Nichal, R/o 1-B/83, Punjabi Bagh West, Delhi-110026 ....Respondent no. 2
3. The New India Assurance Company Ltd.
C/o Core-1, 10th Floor, Scope Minar,
Laxmi Nagar, District Centre,
Delhi -110092 ....Respondent no. 3
MAC No. 2218/16 Firoja Vs. Pushpender & Ors. Page No 1 of 19
Date of Institution of DAR : 12.08.2016
Date of Institution of petition : 17.09.2016
Date of Arguments : 20.12.2019
Date of Judgment : 24.12.2019
AWARD
1. By way of this award, the claim petition under Section 166 & 140 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 filed by the Petitioners and DAR filed by SHO PS Nand Nagri would be decided. This claim petition and DAR arise out of an accident which took place on 15.07.2016 at about 11:15 pm, near Toll Tax, Bhopura Border, Main Wazirabad Road, Delhi resulting in death of Mohd. Arman Chaudhary.
2. The case of petitioners, in brief, is that on 15.07.2016 at about 11.15 pm, the deceased Mohd. Arman Chaudhary was trying to cross the road at TSR stand, Toll Tax, DLF Mor, Wazirabad Road, Delhi and at the same time, the driver of offending vehicle bearing no. DL-1GC-0441 came from Ghaziabad side and hit the deceased with great force. The offending vehicle was driven in rash and negligent manner and at a very high speed. Due to the impact, the deceased fell on the road and sustained multiple injuries in his head and all over the body. The deceased was shifted to GTB Hospital where he was declared dead. It has been alleged that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no. 1.
3. Respondents No. 1 and 2 have filed a joint reply wherein they have stated that the driver has been falsely implicated MAC No. 2218/16 Firoja Vs. Pushpender & Ors. Page No 2 of 19 in this case as no accident was caused due to negligence of respondent no. 1. The respondent no. 1 was helping the injured when he was lying on the road but suddenly public gathered at the spot and somebody made call to PCR and PCR falsely implicated respondent no. 1 in the present case. It is further stated that the offending vehicle was insured with the insurance company and Insurance company is liable to pay the compensation, if any.
4. Respondent No. 3 / Insurance Company, in its reply, has admitted that the offending vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company, but it has denied its liability to pay the compensation amount. It is stated that no notice of the accident was given to the Insurance company by the owner of the offending vehicle who also failed to supply relevant documents in respect of offending vehicle. The amount claimed is exorbitant, excessive and without any basis. Dismissal of claim petition has been prayed for.
5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:
(i). Whether respondent no. 1 was driving vehicle bearing no. DL-
1GC-0441 on 15.07.2016 at 11.15 pm near Toll Tax, Bhopura Border, Main Wazirabad Road, Delhi in a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and hit against Arman @ Farka who fell down and sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries? OPP
(ii). Whether the petitioners are entitled for any compensation, if so and for what amount? OPP
(iii). Relief.
MAC No. 2218/16 Firoja Vs. Pushpender & Ors. Page No 3 of 19
6. To prove the case, the mother of deceased, Ms. Firoza has been examined as PW-1. She reiterated in her affidavit that on 15.07.2016 at about 11:15 pm, her son was standing and tried to cross the road at TSR Stand, Toll Tax, DLF Mor, Main Wazirabad Road, Delhi when suddenly offending vehicle bearing No. DL-1GC- 0441 being driven by respondent no. 1 in rash and negligent manner struck against him and caused him fatal injuries. PW-1 further deposed that the deceased expired during treatment after removal to GTB Hospital and postmortem was conducted on the dead body of deceased. She also deposed that the deceased was working with Om Sai Construction Company, Noida and was drawing a salary of Rs. 18,000/- pm at the time of his death and the deceased was a bachelor and has left behind the petitioners as sole LR's who were dependent upon him. She has relied upon the documents Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/D and Mark A. During cross examination, she has admitted that deceased alongwith all the LRs are resident of Sahibabad, Ghaziabad, UP.
7. PW2 Monu Chaudhary is an eye witness to this accident and has deposed that on 15.07.2016 between 11.00 to 11.30 pm, he was present at the auto stand alongwith his auto near Delhi Bhopura Toll Tax where one truck bearing No. DL-1GC-0441 was coming from Ghaziabad side, being driven by respondent No.1 in rash and negligent manner, hit against the deceased who was going on foot, as a result deceased sustained injuries and he took him to GTB Hospital where doctor declared him brought dead. It is further deposed that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the truck driver. During cross examination, he MAC No. 2218/16 Firoja Vs. Pushpender & Ors. Page No 4 of 19 has deposed that he was standing alongwith his auto on Delhi Bhopura Toll Tax and the distance between Toll Tax and the site of accident is about 10-15 meters. He further testified, in his cross examination, that the deceased was coming from Sunder Nagri and wanted to cross the road and there was no zebra crossing or red light at the place of accident. PW2 volunteered and stated that it is a border area and no zebra crossing was marked. He identified the driver of the offending vehicle who was present in the court. Thereafter, the petitioners' evidence was closed.
8. Respondents have not led any evidence in the instant matter and respondents' evidence was closed vide order dated 14.09.2018.
9. Arguments heard on behalf of petitioner and respondent no. 3. Record perused. None appeared on behalf of respondent no. 1 and 2 to address arguments.
10. Issue wise findings are as under:-
11. ISSUE NO. 1 - In an action founded on the principle of fault liability, the proof of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle is sine qua non. However, the standard of proof is not as strict as applied in criminal cases and evidence is to be tested on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities. Holistic view is to be taken while dealing with the Claim Petition based upon negligence. Strict rules of evidence are not applicable in an inquiry conducted by the Claims Tribunal. Reference may be made to the judgments titled as New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sakshi Bhutani & Ors., MAC APP. No. 550/2011 decided on 02.07.2012, Bimla Devi & Ors. Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation & MAC No. 2218/16 Firoja Vs. Pushpender & Ors. Page No 5 of 19 Ors. (2009) 13 SC 530, Parmeshwari Vs. Amirchand & Ors. 2011 (1) SCR 1096 & Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. 2018, Law Suit (SC) 303.
12. In the instant claim petition, respondent no. 1 / driver and respondent no. 2 / owner, in their joint reply, have no where denied the factum of occurrence of accident. In the first and second paragraph of the reply, it is admitted that respondent no. 1 was driving vehicle bearing no. DL-1GC-0441 at the time of accident and that the son of the petitioner no. 1 and 2 got injured in the said accident. Para no. 1 and 2 of the reply are reproduced as under:-
"1. That the answering respondent no. 1 is driver and respondent no. 2 is the owner of the vehicle bearing no. DL-1GC-0441.
2. That the respondent is not liable to pay any compensation or even a single penny to the petitioner in any manner, as no accident was took place due to the negligence of the respondent because at the time of accident the respondent running his vehicle as per rules and regulations of the vehicle / traffic. It is submitted that the respondent made help to the injured when he was lying on the road but suddenly the public were gathered at the spot and somebody made call to PCR and the PCR falsely implicated the respondent in the present FIR".
MAC No. 2218/16 Firoja Vs. Pushpender & Ors. Page No 6 of 19
13. In para no. 2 of the reply as reproduced hereinabove, it is stated that the respondent no. 1 was driving the vehicle as per rules and regulations at the time of accident, but it is not specified as to how the accident took place. The accident took place at 11.15 pm on 15.07.2016 and on the complaint of Sh. Monu Chaudhary, FIR was lodged at 2:35 am on 16.07.2016 i.e. about three hours after the accident. In the said complaint / FIR, complainant Sh. Monu Chaudhary stated as to how the accident took place. He stated in the complaint that at 11:15 pm on 15.07.2016, he saw the deceased Arman @ Farka crossing the road near Bhopura Border, when truck no. DL-1GC-0441 being driven rashly and at high speed had hit the deceased because of which the deceased fell on the road and blood started coming out of his nose. The deceased was taken to GTB Hospital in TSR and as per MLC No. B-3916/16, the patient was brought by complainant Sh. Monu with alleged history of Road Traffic Accident (RTA) at Bhopura. The patient was examined by Dr. Madhu Sudhan and Dr. Manik Tikoo and he was declared brought dead at 11:35 pm. The contents of MLC are in consonance with the FIR. The dead body was preserved and postmortem was conducted at GTB Hospital on 16.07.2016 at 12.05 pm i.e. about 12 hours, after the accident and as per postmortem report, the time since death was "about half a day", which further corroborates the contents of MLC and the FIR. As per the postmortem report, there was one grazed reddish abrasion of size 10x 7 cm present over back on left side, 14 cm lateral to mid line and 4 cm below shoulder top with fracture of underlying head of humerus. There was also extravasation of blood present at fracture ends and in the MAC No. 2218/16 Firoja Vs. Pushpender & Ors. Page No 7 of 19 surrounding tissue. As per PM report, during examination of chest, the left side of ribcage was found to be severely damaged with the following observation: "1st to 6th ribs fracture in mid-clavicular line and left clavicular fracture present. Extravasation of blood present at fracture ends and in surrounding tissue".
14. As per the aforesaid observation, six ribs were fractured which shows that the impact of accident was quite grave / forceful which resulted into almost instant death of the deceased. The cause of death as per PM report is : "Haemorrhagic shock as a result of antemortem injury to chest produced by blunt force impact".
15. The opinion regarding cause of death also corroborates the contents of FIR. The petitioners examined eye witness / complainant Sh. Monu Chaudhary as PW2 and he, in his examination in chief, testified that "On 15.07.2016 at about 11.00 to 11.30 pm, I was present on the auto stand alongwith my auto near Delhi Bhopura Toll Tax where one truck bearing registration no. DL- 1GC-0441 was coming from Ghaziabad side in a rash and negligent and hit one boy, who was going on foot". The witness also identified the driver before the Tribunal during his cross examination conducted by Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 1 and 2. Ld. Counsel for Insurance company cross examined the eye witness /PW2 regarding the manner of accident and the same is reproduced as under:-
"I was standing alongwith my auto on Delhi Bhopura Toll Tax. The distance between toll tax and the site plan of accident is about 10-15 mtrs. The deceased was coming from Sunder Nagri and wanted to cross MAC No. 2218/16 Firoja Vs. Pushpender & Ors. Page No 8 of 19 the road. There was no zebra crossing or red light at the place of accident. Vol. It is border area and no zebra crossing was marked. The deceased was crossing the road and going towards Harsh Vihar. The deceased was neither owing a TSR nor he was driver on any TSR. I had seen the deceased alongwith his relative earlier.
I used to ply the auto whole night. I had seen the truck coming from Ghaziabad side before the accident. I had not called the deceased to be aware before the crossing the road since the truck was coming very rashly and negligently. The accident occurred within 2-3 minutes when I last seen the offending vehicle. It is wrong to suggest that the accident was caused due to sole negligence on the part of deceased who did not care for on going traffic on the road. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely just to help the Lrs of the deceased"
16. Respondents could not extract anything substantial in the aforesaid cross examination so as to create a doubt regarding the manner of the accident as deposed by eye witness / PW2. So far as zebra crossing is concerned, there is no zebra crossing at the place of accident even as per the site plan. It is also not the case of the Insurance company that there was a zebra crossing nearby, but the victim / deceased did not use the same. Even otherwise, the presence of zebra crossing nearby would not justify rash and high MAC No. 2218/16 Firoja Vs. Pushpender & Ors. Page No 9 of 19 speed driving of the offending vehicle resulting into hitting of a pedestrian with such an impact that the victim expired almost immediately because of six fractured ribs. There is nothing on record to suggest that PW2 had any ill will or motive to falsely depose against respondent no. 1 in the instant claim petition. The testimony of eye witness / PW2 is found to be credible and trustworthy. The version of eye witness / PW2 duly supported with postmortem report and site plan is sufficient to conclude that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by the respondent no. 1 resulting in death of Mohd. Arman Chaudhary at the spot. Issue no. 1 is answered in favour of petitioners.
17. ISSUE NO. 2: - In view of finding on aforesaid issue, the petitioners are entitled to compensation, however, the quantum of compensation and the liability to pay the same etc. still needs to be adjudicated. Section 168 of the Act enjoins the claim tribunal to hold an inquiry into the claim to make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to just and reasonable. It has to be borne in mind that the compensation is not expected to be wind fall or a bonanza nor it should be pittance. To determine the compensation in a fatal case, three facts need to be established by the claimants: (a) age of the deceased; (b) income of the deceased; and (c) the number of dependents.
(i) Age of deceased: The age of deceased is necessary to apply the multiplier. As per the aadhar card of deceased, his date of birth was 13.07.1997 and the accident took place on 15.07.2016, MAC No. 2218/16 Firoja Vs. Pushpender & Ors. Page No 10 of 19 accordingly, the age of deceased was 19 years at the time of accident.
(ii) Determination of Income of deceased : After deciding the age of deceased, his income need to be determined. The mother of deceased examined as PW1 deposed that the deceased was working with Om Sai Construction Company, Noida and was earning Rs. 18,000/- pm. No document in support of said employment has been filed on record, thus, the income of deceased is to be determined as per minimum wages prevalent in UP as deceased was resident of Sahibabad, UP and admittedly was employed in Noida, UP. On the day of accident, the minimum wages payable to an unskilled person in UP was Rs. 7107.64/-pm. The annual income of deceased comes to be Rs. 85,291.68/-.
(iii) Number of dependents : The instant claim petition has been filed by five petitioners. Petitioner No. 1 is the mother of deceased, petitioner no. 2 is his father, petitioner no. 3 and 4 are his sisters and petitioner no. 5 is his brother. Though the deceased is survived by his parents and siblings, only his mother would be considered to be his dependent. (Reference may be made to judgment of Sarla Verma & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121.
(iv) Multiplier applicable in this case - As the age of the deceased has been ascertained, an appropriate multiplier has to be determined. The judgment titled as Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121 is relevant to consider the multiplier. Para 21 of the MAC No. 2218/16 Firoja Vs. Pushpender & Ors. Page No 11 of 19 judgment has laid down the multiplier as per age as under:
MULTIPLIER AGE GROUP OF DECEASED
M-18 Age groups between 15 to 20 and 21 to
25 years)
M-17 Age groups between 26 to 30 years,
M-16 Age groups between 31 to 35 years,
M-15 Age groups between 36 to 40 years,
M-14 Age groups between 41 to 45 years,
M-13 Age groups between 46 to 50 years,
M-11 Age groups between 51 to 55 years,
M-9 Age groups between 56 to 60 years,
M-7 Age groups between 61 to 65 years
M-5 Age groups between 66 to 70 years.
In view of the above said judgment, a multiplier of 18 has to be applied against 19 years of age of the deceased to determine the compensation.
(v) Necessary deductions out of earnings of the deceased towards personal expenses: After choosing the age, multiplier and income of the deceased, necessary deductions have to be made out of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as Reshma MAC No. 2218/16 Firoja Vs. Pushpender & Ors. Page No 12 of 19 Kumari & Ors. v. Madan Mohan & Anr., (2013) 9 SCC 65, in Para 30, has laid down the necessary deductions towards personal living and expenses of deceased as under:
Number of Deductions out of earning of the deceased.
dependents
Half / ½ Where dependent is 1
1/3rd Where the number of dependent family members
is 2 to 3
1/4th Where the number of dependent family members
is 4 to 6,
1/5th Where the number of dependent family members
exceeds 6 (six).
Only his mother / petitioner no. 1 was dependent upon deceased. As there is only one dependent of the deceased, 1/2 earnings of the deceased has to be considered towards deductions out of his yearly earnings. As such, 1/2 amount out of annual income of Rs.85,291.68/-i.e. Rs. 42,645.84/- p.a. has to be reduced towards personal expenses.
(vi) Future prospects : Besides it, future income of the deceased is also to be considered in view of judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court titled as National Insurance Company Limited vs. Praney Sethi & Ors, SLP (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014 decided on 31.10.2017 in which it is observed as under:-
"(iii) While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased MAC No. 2218/16 Firoja Vs. Pushpender & Ors. Page No 13 of 19 towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%.
Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax.
(iv) In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component.
(viii) Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs.
40,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years.
In view of the above said judgment, 40% amount is to be considered towards future income of the deceased who was aged around 19 years but had no permanent employment.
MAC No. 2218/16 Firoja Vs. Pushpender & Ors. Page No 14 of 19
(vii) Loss of Dependency : It has already been observed that the deceased was earning Rs.42,645.84 p.a rounded off to Rs.42,646/- p.a. after half deduction. This annual income has to be multiplied by a multiplier of 18 as per Sarla Verma v. DTC (supra). Rs. 42,646/- x 18 = Rs. 7,67,628/-. Thereafter, 40% income towards future income of the deceased has to be added in terms of National Insurance Co. v. Prany Shetty (Supra) i.e. 3,07,051.2/- has to be added to above said amount i.e. Rs. 7,67,628 + 3,07,051.2 = 10,74,679.2.
(viii) COMPENSATION UNDER NON PECUNIARY HEADS: In the light of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Praney Sethi (supra), the petitioner no. 1 is entitled to a fixed amount under the following heads:
(a) Loss of consortium- The claimant is mother of deceased so she is entitled to compensation of Rs. 40,000/- under this head.
(b) Loss of Estate- A sum of Rs. 15,000/- is awarded towards loss of estate.
(c) Funeral Charges- Petitioner no. 1 is also entitled to Rs 15,000/- towards funeral expenses.
(d) Loss of Love and Affection: In view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram, Civil Appeal No 9581/ 2018 dated 18/09/2018 which has been relied upon by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sangram Pal & Ors. Vs. Furkan Ansari & Ors (2019) 08 DEL CK0174 decided on 21.08.2019 and in MACA No. 747/2019 titled as Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Harpreet Kaur & Ors. Decided on MAC No. 2218/16 Firoja Vs. Pushpender & Ors. Page No 15 of 19 27.08.2019, petitioner no. 1 is awarded a sum of Rs. 50,000/-
towards 'loss of love and affection'.
Hence, petitioner no. 1 is awarded a total sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- under this head.
18. The total compensation awarded to petitioner no. 1 Ms. Firoza is summarized as under:
1. Loss of dependency / Contribution to Rs. 10,74,679.2 family:
2. Loss of Estate: Rs. 15,000/-
3. Loss of consortium : Rs.40,000/-
4. Funeral Charges Rs. 15,000/-
5. Love and Affection: Rs. 50,000/-
6. Medical expenses Nil Total = Rs. 11,94,679.2 (Rs.
11,94,680/- rounded off)
19. LIABILITY: Now, the question arises as to which of the respondent is liable to pay the compensation amount. The respondent no. 1 is the principal tort feasor being driver and respondent no. 2 is vicariously liable being the owner of the offending vehicle. However, the offending vehicle was insured at the time of accident and the insurance company has contractual and statutory liability to indemnify the insured. In the instant case, the MAC No. 2218/16 Firoja Vs. Pushpender & Ors. Page No 16 of 19 insurance company has not been able to prove that any term or condition of insurance policy was breached / violated by the insured. Consequently, respondent no. 3 / insurance company is liable to pay the aforesaid compensation amount.
RELIEF:
20. In view of findings on the aforesaid issues, the Tribunal awards a compensation of Rs. 11,94,680/- to the petitioner no. 1 alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition till its realization to be paid by respondent no. 3 i.e. New India Assurance company Ltd. within 30 days from the date of this award. The interim compensation, if any, shall be adjusted against this award amount along with the waiver of interest, if any as directed by the Tribunal during the pendency of this case. Respondent No. 3 is directed to give notice regarding deposit of the said amount to the petitioner and his counsel.
RELEASE:
21. Out of the awarded amount, Rs. 1,94,680/- is directed to be released into the saving account of the petitioner no. 1. Remaining amount of Rs.10,00,000/- is directed to be kept with UCO Bank, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit (MACAD) in the form of 50 (fifty) monthly fixed deposit receipts (FDRs) payable in equal amounts for a period of 1 to 50 months in succession, as per the scheme formulated by Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 07.12.2018 in FAO No. 84/2003, titled as Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. The amount MAC No. 2218/16 Firoja Vs. Pushpender & Ors. Page No 17 of 19 of FDRs on maturity would be released in petitioner's Saving / MACT Claims SB Account. The interest on the above said FDRs shall be credited automatically through ECS in the saving account of the petitioner near to her residence. FDRs amount shall be paid on maturity basis in the same account of the petitioner no. 1 against which interest amount is being credited through ECS. The original FDRs shall be retained by the bank in the safe custody. However, the statement containing FDRs numbers, FDRs amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished to the claimant.
No loan, advance or withdrawal / pre-mature discharge shall be allowed on the above-said FDRs without the permission of this Tribunal. The bank shall not open any joint account of the petitioner. The petitioner / claimant shall be at liberty to withdraw and utilize the amount released in her account through withdrawal form or biometric authentication.
The withdrawal from the aforesaid bank account of the petitioner / claimant shall be after due verification by the bank and the bank shall issue photo identity card to the petitioner to facilitate the identity.
No cheque book or debit card shall be issued to the claimant / petitioner without the permission of this Tribunal. 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 freeze the account of the claimant so that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of the claimant from any other branch of the bank. The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the claimant to the effect, that no MAC No. 2218/16 Firoja Vs. Pushpender & Ors. Page No 18 of 19 cheque book and / or debit card have been issued and shall not be issued without the permission of the Court.
The Manager, UCO Bank or of any other bank as desired by the claimant shall open the saving bank account of the claimant or transfer to their existing account, if any, near to her residence after taking relevant documents. The petitioner shall furnish all the relevant documents for opening of the saving bank account and FDRs to Nodal Officer, UCO Bank, KKD, Delhi.
With these observations, the DAR stands disposed off. A copy of this award be given to the parties free of cost. Ahlmad is directed to send a copy of award to Ld. MM concerned and DLSA, Shahdara. Copy of Form V duly filed shall be treated as a part of this award. File be consigned to Record Room and a separate file for compliance be maintained for 07.02.2020.
Announced in open court (SHUCHI LALER)
On 24.12.2019 PO-MACT/SHAHDARA
KARKARDOOMA COURTS,
DELHI
Digitally signed by
SHUCHI SHUCHI LALER
LALER Date: 2019.12.24
17:01:44 +0530
MAC No. 2218/16 Firoja Vs. Pushpender & Ors. Page No 19 of 19