Delhi District Court
Smt. Reena vs Sh. Samunder on 14 August, 2018
MACP No. 5294/16/16 (Old No. 164/09) FIR No. 02/09.; PS Narela DOD: 14.08.2018
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIDYA PRAKASH, PRESIDING OFFICER,
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
MAC Petition No. 5294/16 (Old MAC Petition No. 164/09)
1. Smt. Reena
Widow of Late Sh Jasbir Singh
(Widow of deceased)
2. Ms. Bhawna
D/o Late Sh. Jasbir Singh
(Daughter of deceased)
3. Ms. Muskan
D/o Late Sh. Jasbir Singh
(Daughter of deceased)
4. Master Lakshay
S/o Late Sh. Jasbir Singh
(Minor son of deceased)
5. Smt. Birhmo Devi
Widow of Late Sh. Sardar Singh
(Mother of deceased)
All R/o Village Pooth Khurd,
Delhi39.
(Petitioners no. 2 to 4 being minor, is
represented through her mother Smt. Reena
Natural Guardian/petitioner no.1).
................Petitioners
VERSUS
1. Sh. Samunder
S/o Sh. Bramdev
R/o G.No. 10, Gali No. 10,
Sanjay Colony, Narela, Delhi40.
(Driver Cum Owner)
2. National Insurance Co. Ltd.
Through its Manager,
Flat No. 101/106, N1, BMC House,
Connaught Place, New Delhi.
...............Respondents
Smt. Reena & Ors. Vs. Samunder Singh & Ors. Page 1 of 14
MACP No. 5294/16/16 (Old No. 164/09) FIR No. 02/09.; PS Narela DOD: 14.08.2018 Date of Institution : 29.01.2009 Date of Arguments : 30.07.2018 Date of Decision : 14.08.2018 APPEARANCES: Sh. Jatinder Kamra Adv for petitioners.
None for respondent no. 1.
Sh. V.K Puri Adv for respondent no. 2.
Petition under Section 163A of M.V. Act, 1988 for grant of compensation.
AWARD
1. Vide this judgment, I shall dispose off the petition filed by the petitioners under Section 163A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'MV Act') for grant of compensation for the fatal injuries suffered by Jasbir Singh in the road accident.
2. Briefly, the case of the petitioners is that on 02.01.2009 at about 8.40 a.m, Jasbir Singh was driving Maruti Van bearing registration No. DL4CAA 6914, when said Maruti Van was hit by some unknown vehicle at Narela Bawana Road, near office of Delhi Jal Board, Narela, Delhi. FIR No. 02/09 U/s 279/304A IPC was registered at PS Narela with regard to said accident. The said Maruti Van was owned by respondent no. 1 and it was insured with respondent no. 2, vide Package Policy for the period in question. It is further averred that Jasbir Singh (since expired) was aged 33 years old; he was agriculturist/driver and was earning Rs. 3300/ per month at the time of accident. On the basis of these averments, the petitioners have claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 20,00,000/ alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. against the respondents.
3. The respondent no.1/regd owner failed to file any WS despite grant of repeated opportunities and consequently, his defence was struck off vide order dt. 17.08.2009 passed by my Ld. Predecessor.
4. The respondent no. 2/insurance company filed its WS, wherein it has raised statutory defence as provided in Section 149(2) M.V Act by Smt. Reena & Ors. Vs. Samunder Singh & Ors. Page 2 of 14 MACP No. 5294/16/16 (Old No. 164/09) FIR No. 02/09.; PS Narela DOD: 14.08.2018 claiming that since the present case is a case of hit and run, same is not covered U/s 163A of M.V Act. It has claimed that the claimants can approach concerned SDM for grant of compensation if any available to them under the law. It has however admitted that the aforesaid Maruti Van was duly insured with it in the name of respondent no. 1, vide Policy No. 4859923 from 26.11.08 to 25.11.09. On merits, it has simply denied the averments made in the claim petition and has prayed for dismissal thereof.
5. From pleading of the parties, the following issues were framed by Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 09.11.2009:
1) Whether Sh Jasbir Singh S/o Sh. Sardar Singh expired due to the fatal injuries received in the roadside accident occurred on 02.01.2009 at about 8.40 am on Narela Bawana Road, Delhi Jal Board, Narela Delhi with the use of vehicle/Maruti Van No. DL4CAA6914?OPP.
2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so to what an extent and from which of the respondents?OPP.
3) Relief.
6. In support of their claim, the petitioners have examined only one witness i.e. PW1 Smt. Reena (widow of deceased) and closed their evidence through their counsel on 21.05.2015. On the other hand, the respondent no.1 i.e. regd owner has examined himself as R1W1. He closed his evidence on 21.05.15. Respondent no. 2 opted not to lead any evidence and closed its RE through counsel on 02.09.15.
7. I have already heard the arguments, perused the record and given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments addressed by ld. counsel for petitioners and ld counsel for respondent no. 2. I have also gone through the authorities cited at the Bar. Both the sides were directed to submit their respective submissions in Form IV A vide order dated 30.07.2018. However, none of the parties submitted the same on record till date. My findings on the issues are as under: Smt. Reena & Ors. Vs. Samunder Singh & Ors. Page 3 of 14 MACP No. 5294/16/16 (Old No. 164/09) FIR No. 02/09.; PS Narela DOD: 14.08.2018 ISSUE NO. 1.
8. At the outset, counsel for insurance company raised an objection as to the maintainability of the claim petition and disputed its liability to pay the compensation amount in this case. Counsel for insurance company vehemently argued that the present claim petition is not maintainable even U/s 163A M.V Act as it is the case of hit and run and the particulars of offending vehicle could not be traced out. For this purpose, the reliance is placed by counsel for insurance company on judgment of Patna High Court reported at 2000 ACJ 502 as well as on the decision of Madras High Court reported at 2004 ACJ 645. However, reliance on these two judgments seems to be totally misplaced, in the backdrop of the fact that insurance policy in respect of Maruti Van No. DL4CAA6914, as available on record, is a package policy which is also known as Comprehensive Policy. Firstly, this fact has nowhere been disputed by insurance company in its WS/reply that there was package policy of the aforesaid Maruti Van. Secondly, no evidence whatsoever has been led by insurance company on this aspect. As already noted above, the insurance company closed its RE. Thirdly, the respondent no. 1, who has examined himself as R1W1 during the course of inquiry, has produced copy of insurance policy (Ex. R1W1/3) of Maruti Van No. DL4CAA6914 for the period in question. The bare perusal of same would leave no scope for doubt that it was a package policy for the period from 26.11.08 till midnight of 25.11.09. The accident in question took place on 02.01.09. Hence, it is beyond dispute that Maruti Van No. DL4CAA 6914 was duly insured with R2 vide package policy as on the date of accident in question. The said policy would further show that the insured had also paid additional premium for driver of the said vehicle to the insurance company. In other words, the risk of driver of Maruti Van No. DL4CAA6914 was also covered by the said policy. Even R1 (R1W1) has admitted during his cross examination that as on 02.01.09, Jasbir Singh @ Smt. Reena & Ors. Vs. Samunder Singh & Ors. Page 4 of 14 MACP No. 5294/16/16 (Old No. 164/09) FIR No. 02/09.; PS Narela DOD: 14.08.2018 Jasvir Singh S/o Sh Sardar Singh was his paid driver and he used to pay Rs. 3300/ per month to him. He also deposed that on the date of accident, he had authorised him to drive Maruti Van. That being so, the legal position is well settled on this issue, as discussed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the celebrated case of " Yashpal Luthra & Anr. Vs. United India Insurance Co Ltd. & Anr.", III (2010) ACC 130. It would be appropriate to discuss the brief facts and the discussion done by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the said judgment. In said case, deceased Vinod Luthra suffered fatal injuries, while he was sitting as pillion rider on motorcycle being driven by his friend. The said motorcycle was hit by an unknown vehicle. His legal heirs preferred claim petition before Claims Tribunal, impleading insurance company as first respondent and owner of said motorcycle as second respondent. The said motorcycle was duly insured with respondent no. 1 vide package insurance policy. The said claim petition was resisted by insurance company on similar ground that the risk of pillion rider was not covered by package/comprehensive policy. However, the said plea was rejected by Hon'ble Delhi High Court. The relevant portion of the said decision is reproduced as under: "xxxxxx
27. In view of the aforesaid, it is clear that the comprehensive/package policy of a two wheeler covers a pillion rider and comprehensive/package policy of a private car covers the occupants and where the vehicle is covered under a comprehensive/package policy, there is no need for Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to go into the question whether the insurance company is liable to compensate for the death or injury of a pillion rider on a two wheeler or the occupants in a private car. Infact, in view of the TAC's directives and those of the IRDA, such a plea was not permissible and ought not to have been raised as, for instance, it was done in the present case. Xxxxxx"
9. It is also pertinent to note that in the above discussed decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court, reference has also been made to Circular dated 16.11.09 issued by IRDA, whereby directions have been issued to CEOs of all the insurance companies restating the factual position relating to the Smt. Reena & Ors. Vs. Samunder Singh & Ors. Page 5 of 14 MACP No. 5294/16/16 (Old No. 164/09) FIR No. 02/09.; PS Narela DOD: 14.08.2018 liability of insurance companies in respect of a pillion rider on a two wheeler and occupants in a private car under the comprehensive/package policy.
10. Apart from above, it is also useful to refer to Clause 28 of India Motor Tariff. Perusal of India Motor Tariff shows that its Clause IMT 28 issued under Section 7 of the Indian Motor Tarrif covers legal liability to pay the driver, etc. For the sake of clarity, said clause is reproduced herein under: " IMT.28. LEGAL LIABILITY TO PAID DRIVER AND/OR CONDUCTOR AND/OR CLEANER EMPLOYED IN CONNECTION WITH THE OPERATION OF INSURED VEHICLE In consideration of an additional premium of Rs. 25/ notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the policy it is hereby understood and agreed that the insurer shall indemnify the insured against the insured's legal liability Under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 or at Common Law and subsequent amendments of these Acts prior to the date of this Endorsement in respect of personal injury to any paid driver and/or conductor and/ or cleaner whilst engaged in the service of the insured in such occupation in connection with the vehicle insured herein and will in addition be responsible for all costs and expenses incurred with its written consent.
Provided always that (1) this Endorsement does not indemnify the insured in respect of any liability in cases where the insured holds or subsequently effects with any insurer or group of insurers a Policy of Insurance in respect of liability as herein defined for inusured's general employees;
(2) the insured shall take reasonable precautions to prevent accidents and shall comply with all statutory obligations;
*(3) the insured shall keep record of the name of each paid driver conductor cleaner or persons employed in loading and/or unloading and the amount of wages and salaries and other earnings paid to such employees and shall at all times allow the insurer to inspect such records on demand.
(4) in the event of the Policy being cancelled at the request of the insured no refund of the premium paid in respect of this Endrosement will be allowed.
Subject otherwise to the terms and conditions limitations and exceptions of the Policy except so far as necessary to meet the requirements of the Motor Vehicle Acts, 1988.
* In case of Private cars/motorised two wheelers (not used for hire or reward) delete this para".
11. Similar question arose for discussion before Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter titled as " The New India Assurance Co Ltd Vs. Smt. Reena & Ors. Vs. Samunder Singh & Ors. Page 6 of 14 MACP No. 5294/16/16 (Old No. 164/09) FIR No. 02/09.; PS Narela DOD: 14.08.2018 Santosh Kumari & Ors.", MAC APP No. 282/05 decided on 18.10.12 and after discussing the legal position on the issue in hand, our own High Court held that the insurance company cannot escape from liability to pay the compensation amount in such a case. Similar view has been taken by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matters titled as " Royal Sundaram Allianz Insurance Co Ltd Vs. Smt. Manju & Ors.", MACP APP No. 639/09 decided on 27.09.12.
12. Having judged the facts of the present case on the touch stone of the legal position as discussed in the above mentioned judgments delivered by Hon'ble Delhi High Court, I am of the considered opinion that the present claim petition is very much maintainable under the law and the insurance co i.e. respondent no. 2 is liable to pay the compensation amount in this case.
13. Now turning back to the facts of the present case. The testimony of PW1 is relevant for deciding this issue. PW1 Smt. Reena (who is widow of deceased) has deposed on the lines of claim petition in her evidence by way of affidavit (Ex .PW1/A) to the effect that on 02.01.09 at about 8.40 am when her husband namely Sh Jasbir Singh @ Jasvir Singh was driving Maruti Van No. DL4CAA6914 and reached at Nareal Bawana Road, Delhi, the said Maruti Van was hit by some unknown vehicle. Due to impact of the said accident, her husband expired leaving behind the petitioners as his legal heirs. She further deposed that father of deceased has pre deceased him. During crossexamination, she admitted that she was not an eye witness of the accident. She further deposed that she could not say that accident had taken place due to negligence of deceased.
14. Be that as it may, considering the fact that the petitioners are seeking compensation U/s 163A of M.V Act, they are not required to prove negligence on the part of driver of the offending unknown vehicle, as grant of compensation U/s 163A of M.V Act is based upon no fault liability.
Smt. Reena & Ors. Vs. Samunder Singh & Ors. Page 7 of 14MACP No. 5294/16/16 (Old No. 164/09) FIR No. 02/09.; PS Narela DOD: 14.08.2018
15. Moreover, the testimony of PW1 is also corroborated by photocopy of FIR No. 02/09(supra), PM report and MLC of deceased prepared at M.V Hospital. The perusal of copy of PM Report dt. 02.01.09 of deceased Satbir Singh, would show that cause of death is opined to be due to shock and hemorrhage following blunt force injury consistent with the manner as alleged. Accordingly, it is hereby held that Satbir Singh had died in motor vehicular accident which took place on 02.01.09 at 8.40 am at Narela Bawana Road, Delhi Jal Board, Narela, Delhi, while he was travelling in Maruti Van no. DL4CAA6914, being driven by respondent no. 1 and which was insured with respondent no. 2. Issue no. 1 is decided accordingly.
Issue No. 216. Section 168 of the Act enjoins the Claims Tribunal to hold an inquiry into the claim to make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just and reasonable. It has to be borne in mind that the compensation is not expected to be a windfall or a bonanza nor it should be niggardly.
17. In the matter titled as " Helen C. Rebello Vs. Maharashtra"
reported at SRTC, 1999 (1) SCC 90, Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:-
"xxxxxx The Court and Tribunals have a duty to weigh the various factors and quantify the amount of compensation, which should be just. What would be "just" compensation is a vexed question. There can be no golden rule applicable to all cases for measuring the value of human life or a limb. Measure of damages cannot be arrived at by precise mathematical calculations. It would depend upon the particular facts and circumstances,and attending peculiar or special features, if any." xxxxx"
LOSS OF DEPENDENCY
18. PW1 Smt. Reena has deposed that deceased was earning Rs.
Smt. Reena & Ors. Vs. Samunder Singh & Ors. Page 8 of 14MACP No. 5294/16/16 (Old No. 164/09) FIR No. 02/09.; PS Narela DOD: 14.08.2018 3300/ per month and he was 33 years old at the time of accident. She further deposed that all the petitioners were financially dependent upon the income of deceased. She has relied upon the following documents: Sr. No. Description of documents Remarks
1. Copy of her Election I Card Ex PW1/1
2. Copy of Election I Card of Ex. PW1/2 mother of deceased
3. Copy of Ration Card Ex. PW1/3
4. Copies of Birth Certificates of Ex. PW1/4 to Ex.
PW1/5petitioners no. 2 to 4
5. Copies of Election I Card and Ex. PW1/6 & Ex.
PW1/7.
DL of deceased
6. Copies of educational Ex. PW1/8 (colly) qualification documents
19. During her cross examination, she deposed not to have filed any documentary proof showing that deceased was having any agricultural land. However, she denied the suggestion that deceased was not doing or earning anything.
20. Ld counsel of petitioners vehemently argued that since no evidence has been led on behalf of respondents for disproving the said fact, the age of the deceased should be taken as 33 years for the purpose of applying the appropriate multiplier in terms of provision contained in ScheduleII of M.V. Act.
21. Date of birth of deceased Satbir Singh is mentioned as 18.07.1975 in Driving License ( Ex. PW1/7). Even in PM report of the deceased, his age is mentioned as 33 years. Both the said documents have gone unchallenged and unrebutted from the side of respondents. The accident had occurred on 02.01.2009. Thus, the age of deceased as on the date of accident, is accepted as 33 years.
Smt. Reena & Ors. Vs. Samunder Singh & Ors. Page 9 of 14MACP No. 5294/16/16 (Old No. 164/09) FIR No. 02/09.; PS Narela DOD: 14.08.2018
22. It is now well settled position that in petition U/s 163A M.V Act, the multiplier has to be applied at the age of deceased. Section 163A M.V Act contains a special provision as to payment of compensation on structured formula basis, as indicated in Second Schedule to the Act. The Second Schedule contains a Table prescribing the compensation to be awarded with reference to the age and income of the deceased.
23. Recently, Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Appeal bearing No. MAC.APP 369/2013 titled as " Sushila Devi & Anr. Vs. Parvesh Kumar & Anr." decided on 25.04.2016, has been pleased to take the aforesaid view while observing in para3 of the judgment that as per Second Schedule, it is the age of the victim which would control the choice of multiplier.
24. Now, the next question arises as to how many dependents were left behind by deceased Satbir Singh. PW1 Smt. Reena has deposed in her evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. PW1/A) that all the petitioners were dependent upon the income of deceased. In other words, there are five dependents i.e. widow, three minor children and old aged mother of deceased. It has been deposed by PW1 that at the time of accident, deceased was agriculturist and was also doing the work of driving and was earning Rs. 3300/ per month. Said part of her testimony is duly corroborated by the testimony of R1W1, who is also the employer of deceased. Nothing material came out during cross examination of both these witnesses from the side of insurance company. After deducting one third from the annual income of deceased towards his personal and living expenses, the annual loss of dependency would come out to Rs. 26,400/. ( Rs. 3300 x 12 x 2/3). The total loss of dependency would be Rs. 4,22,400/ (Rs. 26,400 / x 16) the age of deceased being 33 years). Accordingly, a sum of Rs. 4,22,400/ is awarded on account of loss of dependency.
Smt. Reena & Ors. Vs. Samunder Singh & Ors. Page 10 of 14MACP No. 5294/16/16 (Old No. 164/09) FIR No. 02/09.; PS Narela DOD: 14.08.2018 NON PECUNIARY LOSS
25. As per ScheduleII of M.V Act, the maximum amount which can be awarded under non pecuniary heads in petition U/s 163A of M.V Act, is Rs. 4500/ ( i.e. Rs. 2000/ on account of funeral expense and Rs. 2500/ for loss of estate). Hence, a sum of Rs. 4500/ is awarded under this head.
The total compensation is assessed as under:-
1. Loss of dependency Rs. 4,22,400/
2. Non pecuniary heads Rs. 4500/-
Total Rs. 4,26,900/ Rounded Off Rs. 4,27,000/-
26. Now, the question which arises for determination is as to which of the respondents is liable to pay the compensation amount. Respondent no. 2/insurance company did not adduce any evidence since it had no statutory defence. It is nowhere the case of insurance company that any term or condition of insurance policy was breached/violated by insured. During the course of arguments, counsel for insurance company fairly conceded that insurance company has no statutory defence in this case. Keeping in view the existence of valid insurance policy, respondent no. 2/insurance company becomes liable to pay the compensation amount, as it is liable to indemnify the insured. Issue no. 2 is decided accordingly.
ISSUE NO. 3 RELIEF:
27. In view of my findings on issues no. 1 and 2, I award a compensation of Rs. 4,27,000/ alongwith interest @ 9% per annum in favour of petitioners and against respondent no. 2/ National Insurance Co Ltd w.e.f. date of filing of the petition i.e. 29.01.2009 till the date of its realization (Reliance placed on judgment "Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sangeeta Devi & Ors bearing MAC. APP. 165/2011 decided on Smt. Reena & Ors. Vs. Samunder Singh & Ors. Page 11 of 14 MACP No. 5294/16/16 (Old No. 164/09) FIR No. 02/09.; PS Narela DOD: 14.08.2018 22.02.2016). Issue no. 3 is decided accordingly.
APPORTIONMENT
28. Statements of petitioners/claimants namely Smt. Reena @ Rina and of Smt. Birmo Devi in terms of Clause 26 MCTAP were recorded on 09.02.2017 and 01.06.2017.
29. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the statements of claimants namely Smt. Reena and of Smt. Birmo Devi, it is hereby ordered that out of total compensation amount, claimant Smt. Reena shall be entitled to share amount of Rs. 2,00,000/ alongwith proportionate interest, the claimants namely Ms. Bhawna, Ms. Muskan and Master Lakshay shall be entitled to share amounts of Rs. 60,000/ each alongwith proportionate interest and the claimant namely Smt. Birmo Devi shall be entitled to remaining amount of Rs. 47,000/ alongwith proportionate interest.
30. Out of share amount of petitioner namely Smt Reena, a sum of Rs. 40,000/( Rs. Forty Thousand Only) is directed to be immediately released to her through her Saving Bank Account No. 254610100033689 with Andhra Bank, Rohini Sector24 Branch having IFSC Code No. ANDB0002546 and remaining amount is directed to be kept in the form of FDRs in the multiples of Rs. 25,000/ each for 6 months, 12 months, 18 months and so on and so forth.
31. The entire share amount of petitioners no. 2 to 4 shall be kept in the form of FDRs till they attain the age of majority. However, monthly interest is allowed to be withdrawn by them through their mother/natural guardian namely Smt. Reena, to be used for their welfare and upbringment.
32. The entire share amount of petitioner namely Smt. Birmo Devi, is directed to be immediately released to her through her Saving Bank Smt. Reena & Ors. Vs. Samunder Singh & Ors. Page 12 of 14 MACP No. 5294/16/16 (Old No. 164/09) FIR No. 02/09.; PS Narela DOD: 14.08.2018 Account No. 012005003835 with The Delhi State CoOperative Bank Ltd, Narela Branch having IFSC Code No. DLSC0000012.
33. All the FDRs to be prepared as per aforesaid directions, shall be subject to the following conditions:
(i) The interest on the fixed deposits be paid monthly to the claimants.
(ii) Original fixed deposit receipts be retained by the bank in safe custody. However, a passbook of the FDRs alongwith photocopies of the FDRs be given to the claimants/petitioners. At the time of maturity, the fixed deposit amount shall be automatically credited in the savings bank accounts of the Claimants/petitioners.
(iii) No cheque book/Debit Card be issued to the claimants/petitioners without permission of the Court.
(iv) No loan, advance or withdrawal be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the Court.
(v) The Bank shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the savings bank accounts or fixed deposit account of the victims.
(vi) Half yearly statement of account be filed by the Bank before the Tribunal.
34. During the course of hearing of final arguments, all the claimants submitted that they are entitled to exemption from deduction of TDS as their annual income do not exceed from the taxable limit prescribed under the law. They have also furnished Form Nos. 15G/15H on record.
35. National Insurance Co Ltd being insurer is directed to deposit the award amount in SBI, Rohini Court Branch, within 30 days as per above order, failing which insurance company shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a for the period of delay. Concerned Manager, SBI, Rohini Court Branch is directed to transfer the respective share amounts directed to be released immediately to the petitioners namely Smt. Reena and Smt. Birhmo Devi in their aforesaid saving bank accounts mentioned supra, on completing necessary formalities as per rules. He be further directed to keep the said amount in fixed deposit in its own name till the claimants approach the bank for disbursement so that the award amount starts earning interest from the date of clearance of the cheques. Copy of the award be given dasti to the Smt. Reena & Ors. Vs. Samunder Singh & Ors. Page 13 of 14 MACP No. 5294/16/16 (Old No. 164/09) FIR No. 02/09.; PS Narela DOD: 14.08.2018 petitioners and also to counsel for the insurance company alongwith original Form Nos. 15G/15H of claimants (after retaining photocopies thereof on record) for compliance. Copy of this award alongwith one photograph each, specimen signatures, copy of bank passbooks and copy of residence proof of the petitioners, be sent to Nodal Officer of SBI, Rohini Court, Branch, Delhi for information and necessary compliance. Form no. IVA and Form No. V in terms of MCTAP are annexed herewith as AnnexureA. Copy of order be also sent to concerned M.M and DLSA as per clause 31 and 32 of MCTAP.
Announced in open
Court on 14.08.2018 (VIDYA PRAKASH)
Judge MACT2 (North)
Rohini Courts, Delhi
Smt. Reena & Ors. Vs. Samunder Singh & Ors. Page 14 of 14