Delhi District Court
Kamal Singh (Now Deceased) vs Sh. Arijit Chakraborty ... on 15 February, 2020
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAJ KUMAR
PRESIDING OFFICER:MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL :
(WEST-01):DELHI
MACT Case No. 390/17
Kamal Singh (Now deceased)
Through his mother
Mrs. Jayanti Devi
W/o Late Sh. Bhagat Singh
R/o WZ-1179, Nangal Rai 8B,
Pankha Road, Uttam Nagar,
New Delhi
......Petitioner
VERSUS
1. Sh. Arijit Chakraborty (Driver-cum-owner)
S/o Sh. Amit Kumar Chakraborty
R/o QTR No. 203, Jayadev Tower
Appartment At Jaydev Vihar City
Bhabaneshwar District Khurda
......Respondent
Date of Institution : 03.06.2017
Date of reserving order/judgment : 06.02.2020
Date of pronouncement : 15.02.2020
A W A R D:
FORM-V
COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE MODIFIED CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE
1. Date of the accident 09.03.2017
2. Date of intimation of the accident by the 12.03.2017 Investigation Officer to the Claims Tribunal.
3. Date of Intimation of the accident by the Offending vehicle was not Investigating Officer to the Insurance insured at the time of MACT Case No. 390/17 Page1/19 Company. accident
4. Date of filing of Final Report under Date not mentioned Section 173 Cr. P.C. before the Metropolitan Magistrate.
5. Date of filing of Detailed Accident 03.06.2017 Information Report (DAR) by the Investigating Officer before Claims Tribunal.
6. Date of service of DAR on the Insurance N.A. Company.
7. Date of service of DAR on the claimant 03.06.2017
(s).
8. Whether DAR was complete in all Yes respects?
9. If not, whether deficiencies in the DAR .....
removed later on?
10. Whether the police has verified the Yes documents filed with DAR?
11. Whether there was any delay or The accident in question deficiency on the part of the Investigating took place on 09.03.2017 Officer ? If so, whether any action/ and the DAR was filed on direction warranted? 03.06.2017
12. Date of appointment of the Designated N.A. Officer by the Insurance Company
13. Name, address and contact number of N.A. the Designated Officer of the Insurance Company.
14. Whether the Designated Officer of the N.A. Insurance Company submitted his report within 30 days of the DAR?
15. Whether the Insurance Company N.A. admitted the liability? If so, whether the Designated Officer of the Insurance Company fairly computed the compensation in accordance with law.
16. Whether there was any delay or N.A. deficiency on the part of the Designated Officer of the Insurance Company? If so, MACT Case No. 390/17 Page2/19 whether any action/direction warranted?
17. Date of response of the claimant (s) to N.A. the offer of the Insurance Company.
18. Date of the award 15.02.2020
19. Whether the award was passed with the Yes consent of the parties?
20. Whether the claimant (s) were directed to Yes open savings bank account (s) near their place of residence?
21. Date of order by which claimant (s) were 03.06.2017 directed to open savings bank account
(s) near his place of residence and produce PAN Card and Adhaar Card and the direction to the bank not issue any cheque book/debit card to the claimant(s) and make an endorsement to this effect on the passbook.
22. Date on which the claimant(s) produced Date not mentioned the passbook of their savings bank account near the place of their residence along with the endorsement, PAN Card and Adhaar Card?
23. Permanent Residential Address of the R/o WZ-881, Nangal Raya, Claimant(s). Nangal Raya, South West Delhi, Delhi-110046
24. Details of savings bank account(s) of the A/c No. 4052008001953099 claimant(s) and the address of the bank of Punjab National Bank, with IFSC Code. New Nangal Raya Branch, New Delhi IFSC Code: PUNB0417200
25. Whether the claimant(s) savings bank Yes account (s) in near his place of residence?
26. Whether the claimant (s) were examined Yes at the time of passing of the award to ascertain his/their financial condition?
27. Account number, MICR number, IFSC ADJ/MACT/Parking Account Code, name and branch of the bank of of SBI Tis Hazari Courts, the Claims Tribunal in which the award Delhi as informed by the MACT Case No. 390/17 Page3/19 amount is to be deposited/transfered. Chief Manager, SBI Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi MICR:- 110002126, IFSC Code:- SBIN0000726
1. Vide this Judgment-cum-Award, I shall decide the petition under Section 166 and 140 of Motor Vehicle Act 1988 as amended up to date (hereinafter referred as the 'Act') filed by petitioner Sh. Kamal Singh for grant of compensation for the injuries suffered by him in the road vehicular accident.
2. At the very outset, it becomes pertinent to mention here that during the trial of the present case, the petitioner Sh. Kamal Singh expired on 01.06.2018 on account of the injuries suffered by him in the accident in question.
3. Brief facts of the case of the petitioner are that on 09.03.2017 at about 9:30 pm, the son of the petitioner namely Sh. Kamal Singh was going to May Enclave Hari Nagar after finishing his duty for some work. It has been further stated that when the deceased reached in the middle of the road, the motorcycle bearing no. DL-3SBS-8450 approached from Lajwanti Garden in a rash and negligent manner and hit the son of the petitioner. It has been further stated that due to the forceful impact, the injured Kamal Singh fell down on the road and the driver of the motorcycle also fell down on the road and they both sustained injuries on their bodies. It has been further stated that the injured and driver of the offending motorcycle were taken to DDU Hospital, New Delhi by some unknown person. It has been further stated that the injured was taking treatment from DDU hospital till June, 2018. It has been further stated that on 01.06.2018, the injured expired on account of the injuries suffered by him in the accident in question.
4. It has been further stated that cremation of the injured MACT Case No. 390/17 Page4/19 was done on 01.06.2018 in Samshan Ghat(Cremation ground), Delhi Cantt vide receipt no. 2084 dated 01.06.2018.
5. It has been further stated that the deceased was working at Churiwali Gali, Nangal Rai (Lajwanti Garden), Delhi and earning Rs.20,000/-per month.
6. As a result of the abovesaid accident, as per the case of the petitioner, FIR No. 54/2017; P.S. Hari Nagar, u/s 279/338 IPC was registered against the respondent.
7. It has been further stated that the petitioner was 33 years of age on the date of the accident. The petitioner has claimed compensation under various heads and in total the petitioner has claimed the amount of Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lacs Only).
8. It has been further stated that the respondent being the driver-cum-owner of the offending vehicle is liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner.
9. Reply-cum-counter-claim has been filed by the respondent stating therein that the accident in question took place due to the negligence of the injured/deceased himself as he was crossing the main road from the spot which was far from the red light. It has been further stated that the answering respondent was driving his vehicle at a normal speed. It has been further stated that the injured came all of a sudden in front of the vehicle of the respondent and the respondent was forced to apply emergency brakes but even then, the accident, in question was caused. It has been further stated that in the accident in question, the answering respondent also sustained multiple grievous injuries on his body. It has been further stated that answering respondent has spent more than Rs. 3 Lakhs on his medical treatment and he is still under treatment. It has been further stated that the respondent has got MACT Case No. 390/17 Page5/19 handicapped as he is unable to speak properly. It has been further stated that there is swelling in the face and mouth of the respondent and a plate has been fixed in the mouth of the respondent. It has been prayed that the present claim petition be dismissed.
10. As per the DAR filed by the IO, the offending vehicle was without any insurance on the date and time of the accident.
11. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by this Tribunal on 08.07.2019:-
1. Whether the injured Sh. Kamal Singh suffered injuries in the accident that took place on 09.03.2017 at about 9:30 pm due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing no. DL-3SBS 8450 by the respondent Sh. Arijit Chakarborty? OPP.
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so, at what amount and from whom? OPP.
3. Relief.
12. In order to establish his claim, Smt. Jayanti Devi (mother of the deceased) has examined herself as PW-1 and in her evidence by way of affidavit, she has reiterated and reaffirmed the stand as taken by the petitioner(mother of the deceased) in the present claim petition. She has filed on record her affidavit as Ex. PW1/1; copy of receipt dated 02.06.2018 issued by Shamshan Ghat (Cremation Ground), Delhi Cantt as Ex.PW1/A; the copy of her Aadhar Card, Ration Card and details of her bank account as Ex. PW1/B(colly).
MACT Case No. 390/17 Page6/1913. This witness in para no. 3 of her affidavit has categorically reiterated her stand to the effect that on account of severe injuries, her son expired on 01.06.2018.
14. I have gone through the testimony of the witnesses and entire material available on record. I have also given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments addressed by the Ld. counsel for the petitioner. None came forward on behalf of the respondent to address the final arguments. The petitioner has also been examined under the MCTAP and I have considered the statement of the petitioner under MCTAP as well.
My findings on various issues are as under :-
15. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner u/s 166 & 140 M. V. Act and the onus is upon the petitioner to prove the rash and negligent act of the respondent No.1.
16. The petitioner has examined herself as PW-1 who has well explained the mode and manner of accident. She has reaffirmed and reiterated the averments made in her petition.
17. The respondent i.e. driver-cum-owner of the offending vehicle has not led any evidence and in the considered opinion of this Court, he has utterly failed to prove on record that the accident in question was not caused on account of the negligence of the respondent.
18. In the present case, the police has filed the Detailed Accident Report (DAR) on record pertaining to FIR No. 54/2017; P.S. Hari Nagar, u/s 279/338 IPC was registered against the respondent.
19. In Bimla Devi & Ors vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation & ors (2009) 13 SC 530, in Kaushnumma Begum and others v/s New India Assurance Company Limited, 2001 ACJ 421 MACT Case No. 390/17 Page7/19 SC, in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pushpa Rana cited as 2009 ACJ 287, it has been held that the negligence has to be decided on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities and a holistic view is to be taken. It has been further held that the proceedings under the Motor Vehicle Act are not akin to the proceedings in a Civil Suit and hence, strict rules of evidence are not applicable.
20. In the light of the abovesaid discussion, to my mind, the petitioner has been able to prove issue No.1 in their favour and accordingly, the issue No.1 is decided in favour of the petitioner.
COMPENSATION ISSUE NO. 221. In the abovesaid factual narration, the vital question to be considered by this Court is as to whether the petitioner who is the mother of the deceased has been able to prove that her son has expired on account of the injuries sustained by him in the accident in question or not.
22. It has to be seen that when the DAR was filed, the injured was alive. The date of accident is 09.03.2017. As per the case of the mother of the injured, the injured expired on 01.06.2018. There is no Post Mortem Report of the deceased on record. The MLC of the injured is there on record which mentions that the injured had suffered grievous injury. There is not even a single iota of evidence on record to connect the injury of the injured to his death.
23. As such, I am of the opinion that nothing has been placed on record by the petitioner i.e. by the mother of the deceased injured to prove that the injured expired on account of the injuries suffered by him in the accident in question.
24. Even at the cost of repetition, I would like to state that the date of accident is 09.03.2017 and the date of death of the MACT Case No. 390/17 Page8/19 injured is 01.06.2018. There is a vital gap in between the aforesaid two dates. In the absence of any documentary evidence on record, I am of the opinion that the deceased did not expire on account of the injuries suffered by him in the accident in question. Accordingly, I am of the opinion that the mother of the deceased injured cannot be held entitled for loss of dependency.
25. Nature of injuries and reimbursement of medical bills Perusal of the DAR filed on record by the IO reveals that the injured/deceased Kamal Singh has sustained grievous injuries in the accident. However, the petitioner has not filed on record any medical bill in respect of the injured/deceased Kamal Singh. As such, the petitioner is not entitled for any amount under this head.
Compensation towards loss of income during treatment period
26. The petitioner has filed on record copy of ration card in the form of Ex. PW1/B(colly). In the ration card, the year of birth of the deceased injured has been mentioned as 1981. The date of accident is 09.03.2017. Accordingly, the deceased was about 36 years of age on the date of accident.
27. Though, the petitioner has claimed that the deceased was working at Churiwali Gali Nangal Rai (Lajwanti Garden), New Delhi and getting a salary of Rs.20,000/- per month but nothing has been placed on record by the petitioner to show that the deceased injured was earning Rs.20,000/- per month.
28. Accordingly, the income of the deceased injured can very well be assessed on the basis of the chart available in the Minimum Wages Act of an Unskilled person. The date of accident was 09.03.2017 on which the minimum wages for an Unskilled person for the relevant period were Rs.9724/- per month.
MACT Case No. 390/17 Page9/1929. As stated herein above, the loss of dependency cannot be granted to the petitioner who is the mother of the deceased injured but certainly, I am of the opinion that the mother of the deceased injured is entitled for loss of estate.
30. It has to be seen in the authority titled as Sampati Lal and others Vs. Hari Singh & others cited as II(1985), ACC 467 and AIR 1985 Rajasthan 174 of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court, the Hon'ble High Court was dealing with an issue pertaining to the death of one Sh. Khem Raj.
31. In the said case, the accident took place on 20.03.1972 and the injured suffered from crush injury of both his feet. The injured was 63 years of age and he incurred disability also. However, on 16.04.1974, the injured expired. An application was brought by the legal heirs for substitution but subsequently, the application for claim was dismissed on the ground that the cause of action disappear with the death of the injured applying the maxim of Actio Personalis Moritur Cum Personal. Appeal was filed. It was held "...... The application for compensation does not, therefore, abate if the applicant dies during the pendency of the application.
".....In Thailammai V. A.V. Mallayya Pillai 1981 Acc CJ 185(Mad), it was held that the cause of action in respect of damages to the estate of the deceased survives and passes over to his legal representatives. In Joti Ram V. Chamanlal 1984 Acc CJ 6545:(AIR 1985 Punj & Har 2), a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court took the view that the right to sue survives to the MACT Case No. 390/17 Page10/19 legal representatives of the deceased- injured in respect of claim on account of the loss to the estate. On a careful consideration, I find myself in complete agreement with the views expressed in the above two cases. I am, therefore, of the opinion that if the claim under the Act also relates to the estate of the deceased, the action survives on the death of the claimant and passes over to his legal representatives.
In the instant case, the break-up of the compensation, as disclosed in the application, is (a) Rs. 6800/- as the amount incurred by the deceased for the treatment of his injuries caused in the accident, (b) loss of income at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month for twelve years and (c) Rs. 20,000/- on account of mental and physical pain, agony and suffering. The amount would not have been spent by him, it was to come in the hands of the claimants. Likewise, the loss of income at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month is also a loss to the estate of the deceased so far he remained alive. Had he not sustained the injuries, the loss of income would not have occurred. If it had not occurred, the claimants would have received it on the death of the injured. The loss of MACT Case No. 390/17 Page11/19 income for the period from the accident to the death of the injured amounts to a loss to the estate. The loss of income occurring after the death of the deceased is not a loss to the estate. The compensation for the loss of income for the period subsequent to the death of the victim cannot, therefore, be claimed. So also the amount of Rs. 20,000/- claimed on account of mental and physical pain, agony and suffering is not a loss to the estate and the action dies on his death. It does not survive and pass over to his legal representatives.
The tribunal applied the doctorine of Actio Personalis Moritur Cum Persona in respect of the entire claim without taking into consideration the loss to the estate of the deceased Khemraj. The approach the Tribunal, so far it relates to the dismissal of the claim in respect of the loss to the estate of the deceased, cannot, therefore, be maintained.
In the result, the appeal is allowed and the award dated March 5, 1975 of the Tribunal dismissing the application for compensation, is set aside. The case is sent back to the Tribunal with directions to continue further proceedings in the case and decide the claim in respect of the loss of the estate of the deceased Khemraj relating to medical MACT Case No. 390/17 Page12/19 expenses and the loss of income for the period from the accident to the day of the death of Khemraj."
32. Going by the ratio of the above stated authority, the petitioner is entitled for loss of income of the deceased from the date of the accident till the date of his death. The accident took place on 09.03.2017 and the injured expired on 01.06.2018. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled for loss of income of the deceased for a period of 15 months. The monthly income of the injured has already been taken as Rs. 9724/- per month. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs. 1,45,860/- (Rs. 9724/- x 15) under this head.
33. Accordingly, in total, the petitioner is entitled for the compensation of Rs. 1,45,860/-.
34. The deceased injured has left behind his legal heirs i.e. the petitioner who is the mother of the deceased.
R E L I EF / ISSUE NO.3
35. I award Rs. 1,45,860/-(Rupees One Lakh Forty Five Thousand Eight Hundred and Sixty Only) as compensation with interest at the rate of 9% per annum including interim award, if any from the date of filing the DAR/claim petition i.e. 03.06.2017 till the date of the payment of the award amount, in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent.
36. The petitioner has also been examined under MCTAP on 06.02.2020 and her statement has also been considered by this Tribunal.
MODE OF DISBURSEMENT OF THE AWARD AMOUNT TO THE CLAIMANTS AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE 'MODIFIED MACT Case No. 390/17 Page13/19 CLAIM TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE' (MCTAP).
37. This court is in receipt of the orders dated 07.12.2018 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in FAO no. 842/2003 titled as Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors whereby the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has formulated MACAD(Motor Accident Claims Annunity Deposit Scheme) which has been made effective from 01.01.2019. The said orders dated 07.12.2018 also mentions that 21 banks including State Bank of India is one of such banks which are to adhere to MACAD. The State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi is directed to disburse the amount in accordance with MACAD formulated by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
38. Keeping in view the entirety of the facts and circumstances involved in the present case and the abovesaid guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, the respondent is directed to deposit the amount of Rs. 1,45,860/- (Rupees One Lakh Forty Five Thousand Eight Hundred and Sixty Only) as stated herein above with SBI, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, out of which the amount of Rs. 45,860/- (Rupees Forty Five Thousand Eight Hundred and Sixty Only) shall be released to the petitioner keeping in view the submissions of the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner and that of the respondent as well and in the entirety of the facts.
39. The rest of the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lacs Only) shall be kept in 10 equal monthly FDR's for the period of one month to 10 months for an amount of Rs. 10,000/- each with cumulative interest in favour of the petitioner. However, money can be withdrawn through withdrawl slip only.
40. The following conditions are to be adhered to by SBI, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi with respect to the fixed deposits:-
(a) The Bank shall not permit any joint MACT Case No. 390/17 Page14/19 name(s) to be added in the savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of the claimant(s) i.e. the savings bank account(s) of the claimant(s) shall be an individual savings bank account(s) and not a joint account(s).
(b) The 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 claimant(s).
(c) The monthly interest be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant(s) near the place of their residence.
(d) The maturity amounts of the FDR(s) be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant (s) near the place of their residence.
(e) No loan, advance, withdrawal or pre- mature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the Court.
(f) The concerned bank shall not be issue any cheque book and/or debit card to claimant(s). 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 the claimant(s) so that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of the claimant(s) from any other branch of the bank.
(g) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the claimant(s) to the effect that no cheque book and/or debit card have been issued and shall not be issued without the permission of the Court and claimant(s) shall produce the passbook with the necessary endorsement before the Court on the next date fixed for compliance.
(h) It is clarified that the endorsement MACT Case No. 390/17 Page15/19 made by the bank along with the duly signed and stamped by the bank official on the passbook(s) of the claimant(s) is sufficient compliance of clause (g) above.
41. In accordance with the orders dated 08.02.2019 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in FAO no. 842/2003 in Rajesh Tyagi and others Vs. Jaibir Singh and others, Mr. Rajan Singh, Assistant General Manager has been appointed as Nodal Officer of SBI having Phone no. 022- 22741336/9414048606 and e mail ID [email protected]. In case of any assistance or non compliance, the aforesaid Nodal Officer may be contacted to. A copy of this order be sent by e- mail to the aforesaid Nodal Officer of the aforesaid bank by the Ahlmad of the Court immediately in accordance with the directions of the Hon'ble High Court as contained in the orders dated 07.12.2018. The Nodal Officer of the bank shall ensure the disbursement of the award amount within three weeks of the receipt of the e-mail as mentioned in the orders dated 07.12.2018 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
APPORTIONMENT OF LIABILITY
42. Since the offending vehicle was not insured, the respondent is hereby directed to deposit the award amount in favour of the petitioner with SBI, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi within a period of 30 days from the date of passing of this award together with the interest as stated herein above under intimation to this court and under intimation to the petitioner. In case of any delay, it shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum for the period of delay.
A separate file be prepared for compliance report by MACT Case No. 390/17 Page16/19 the Nazir and put up the same on 23.03.2020.
A copy of this award be given to the parties free of costs.
A copy of this award be sent to the concerned Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate as well as DSLSA as per the provisions of the MODIFIED CLAIM TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE (MCTAP).
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court ( RAJ KUMAR ) On 15th of February, 2020 Judge, MACT (WEST-01) Delhi (15.02.2020) Digitally signed by RAJ RAJ KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2020.02.27 15:33:15 +0530 MACT Case No. 390/17 Page17/19 FORM -IVA SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN DEATH CASES
1. Date of accident :- 09.03.2017
2. Name of the deceased :- Sh. Kamal Singh
3. Age of the deceased :- 36 years
4. Occupation of the deceased :- Private Job
5. Income of the deceased :- Rs. 9724/-
6. Name, age and relationship of legal representative of deceased:-
S. Name Age Relation
No.
(I) Mrs. Jayanti DOB: Mother of the deceased
01.01.1973
Computation of Compensation
Sr. No. Heads Awarded by the Claim Tribunal
7. Income of the deceased(A) Rs.9724/-
8. Add-Future Prospects (B) NIL
9. Less-Personal expenses NIL
of the deceased(C)
10. Monthly loss of NIL
dependency[(A+B)-C=D]
11. Annual loss of dependency NIL
(Dx12)
12. Multiplier(E) NIL
13. Total loss of dependency NIL
14. Medical Expenses(G) NIL
15. Compensation for loss of NIL
consortium(H)
16. Compensation for loss of Rs.1,45,860/-
MACT Case No. 390/17 Page18/19
estate(I)
17. Compensation towards NIL
funeral expenses(J)
18. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.1,45,860/-
(F+G+H+I+J+=K)
19. RATE OF INTEREST 9% per annum
AWARDED
20. Interest amount up to the Rs. 35,443.92(2 years 8 months and 12 date of award (L) days)
21. Total amount including Rs. 1,81,303.92 interest (K + L)
22. Award amount released Rs.45,860/-
23. Award amount kept in Rs. 1 lacs FDRs
24. Mode of disbursement of Mentioned in the award the award amount to the claimant (s).
25. Next date for compliance 23.03.2020 of the award (RAJ KUMAR) P.O.MACT (WEST-01) Delhi (15.02.2020) MACT Case No. 390/17 Page19/19 MACT Case No. 390/17 15.02.2020 Present None.
Award has been passed separately.
File be consigned to Record Room.
A separate file be prepared for compliance report by the Nazir and put up the same on 23.03.2020.
A copy of this award be sent to the concerned Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate as well as DSLSA as per the provisions of the MODIFIED CLAIM TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE (MCTAP).
( RAJ KUMAR ) P.O. MACT (WEST-01) Delhi/15.02.2020 MACT Case No. 390/17 Page20/19