Delhi District Court
Smt. Shyoraj Kali (Wife Of Deceased) vs . on 29 May, 2023
Five year old matter
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHEFALI BARNALA TANDON
PRESIDING OFFICER : MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF:
SHYORAJ KALI & ANR.
Vs.
BABLOO & ORS.
MACP No. 204/2017
1. Smt. Shyoraj Kali (Wife of deceased)
W/o Late Sh. Parkash
2. Shri Ram Bharose (Son of deceased)
S/o Late Sh. Parkash
Both Permanent R/o
Village Alipur, Milak Tehsil,
Hasanpur, District J. P. Nagar,
Uttar Pardesh-244241. ......Petitioners
Versus
1. Shri Babloo (Driver)
S/o Sh. Ramawtar
R/o Village Bijal Pur Phool Pur,
P. S. Hasanpur District - Amroha,
U.P.
2. Shri Jaiveer (Owner)
S/o Sh. Veer Singh
R/o Village Phool Pur,
Tehsil Hasanpur, J. P. Nagar,
U. P.
3. M/s National Insurance Co. Ltd. (Insurer)
Office at : 101-106, BMC House,
Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001. ......Respondents
MACP No. 204/2017 Shyoraj Kali & Anr. Vs. Babloo & Ors. Page 1 of 18
Date of filing of claim petition : 09.08.2017 Date of framing of issues : 28.09.2018 Date of concluding arguments : 11.05.2023 Date of decision : 29.05.2023 AWARD/JUDGMENT
1. The claim for compensation raised in this claim petition is in respect of fatal injuries alleged to have been suffered by the deceased Sh. Parkash in a road accident that took place on 16.11.2012 at about 8:30 p.m., Near Hotel/Dhaba Dhan Singh, U.P., regarding which one FIR bearing No.571/2012, under Sections 279/304-A IPC was registered at PS Hasanpur, U.P. The vehicle involved in this case is a motorcycle bearing registration No. UP-23K-4960, which at the relevant time of accident was being driven by respondent No.1 (R-1), owned by respondent No. 2 (R-2) and insured with respondent No. 3 (R-3).
2. Succinctly put, facts of case as per claim petition are that the petitioners are wife and children of the deceased. On the above said date and time, the deceased was going towards Dhaba of Dhan singh for dinner and all of a sudden, the offending vehicle bearing registration No. UP-23K-4960, which was being driven by respondent no. 1 in rash and negligent manner, came in high speed and hit the deceased with great force due to which the deceased sustained multiple injuries all over his body. He died on the way when the police was taking him to the hospital. His postmortem was conducted by the doctors of Government Hospital, Hasanpur, U.P.
3. Respondent No.1 & 2 were duly served by way of publication but they failed to appear before the Tribunal and both MACP No. 204/2017 Shyoraj Kali & Anr. Vs. Babloo & Ors. Page 2 of 18 of them were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 28.09.2018.
4. Respondent no. 3/Insurance Company has filed written statement/reply to the claim petition stating that the accident was caused due to negligence of deceased as he himself was walking on the wrong side of the road. It is further stated that Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation as the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving license at the relevant time of accident.
5. On 28.09.2018, the following issues were framed by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court as:-
1. Whether Sh. Parkash sustained fatal injuries in the accident which occurred on 16.11.2012 at about 8:30 p.m. Near Hotel/Dhaba Dhan Singh, U.P. caused by rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. UP-
23K-4960 being driven by respondent No. 1, owned by respondent No. 2 and insured with respondent No. 3? OPP.
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
3.Relief.
6. The Tribunal heard the arguments advanced on behalf of Mohd. Rafi, Ld. Counsel for petitioners and Sh. Dwapayan Gupta, Ld. Counsel for Insurance Company and has perused the entire case record. The finding on the aforesaid issues is stated hereinafter in the succeeding paragraphs.
ISSUE NO. 11. Whether Sh. Parkash sustained fatal injuries in the accident which occurred on MACP No. 204/2017 Shyoraj Kali & Anr. Vs. Babloo & Ors. Page 3 of 18 16.11.2012 at about 8:30 p.m. Near Hotel/Dhaba Dhan Singh, U.P. caused by rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. UP- 23K-4960 being driven by respondent No. 1, owned by respondent No. 2 and insured with respondent No. 3? OPP.
7. Onus to prove this issue was upon the petitioners. The first question that needs to be decided is whether the accident was caused by vehicle bearing registration No. UP-23K- 4960. In order to prove the same, the petitioners have examined Sh. Veer Singh, an eye witness to the accident as PW1 who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex. PW1/A and relied upon the certified copies of documents of the criminal case record as Ex. PW1/1 (colly). He deposed that on 16.11.2012, he was standing on Dhaba of Dhan Singh for dinner and at about 8:35 p.m., he saw a motorcycle bearing registration No. UP-23K- 4960 came in a rashness and high speed and hit the deceased Parkash with great force, who was coming to hotel for dinner. He further deposed that the deceased was taken to Government Hospital Hasanpur but died during the treatment. However, no cross examination regarding negligence has been led on behalf of respondents.
8. It is explicit form the testimony of PW-1 that occurrence of accident has not been disputed and the testimony of the witness in this regard has gone unrebutted. The testimony of PW-1 has been duly corroborated with the certified copies of documents of the criminal case record as Ex. PW1/1 (colly).
MACP No. 204/2017 Shyoraj Kali & Anr. Vs. Babloo & Ors. Page 4 of 189. Moreover, it has not been disputed that respondent no. 1 has been charge-sheeted in the aforesaid FIR for offences punishable under Sections 279/304-A IPC for rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., 2018 Law Suit (SC) 303 has observed that filing of charge sheet against the driver prima facie points towards his complicity in driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. It has been further observed that even when the accused were to be acquitted in the criminal case, the same may be of no effect on the assessment of the liability required in respect of motor accident cases by the Tribunal.
10. Pertinently, respondent no. 1 himself was the best witness who could have stepped into the witness box to rebut his involvement in the aforesaid accident but he failed to appear before the Tribunal despite service by way of publication and he was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 28.09.2018. Therefore, an adverse inference is drawn against the respondent no. 1/driver in terms of judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi passed in the case of Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Kamlesh, reported in 2009 (3) AD (Delhi) 310.
11. It is well settled that the procedure followed for proceedings conducted by an accident tribunal is similar to that followed by a Civil Court and in Civil matters, the facts are required to be established on preponderance of probabilities and not beyond reasonable doubt, as are required in a criminal prosecution. Reference in this regard is made to the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court reported as (2009) 13 SC 530 in Bimla Devi and others Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and MACP No. 204/2017 Shyoraj Kali & Anr. Vs. Babloo & Ors. Page 5 of 18 others, wherein it has been observed that strict proof of an accident caused by a particular vehicle in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the petitioners and the petitioners were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability.
12. In view of foregoing discussion, it stands proved on preponderance of probability that the aforesaid accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle bearing registration no. UP-23K-4960 and the said vehicle at that time was being driven by respondent no. 1, owned by respondent no. 2 and insured with respondent no. 3. Hence, this issue is decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
ISSUE NO. 2Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
13. As rashness and negligence on part of driver of the offending vehicle/respondent No. 1 has been proved, the petitioners have become entitled to be compensation for death of their family member in the said accident, but the computation of compensation and liability to pay the same are required to be decided. The compensation to which the petitioners are entitled shall be under the heads as discussed hereinafter.
(i) Loss of dependency
14. The petitioner No. 1 being wife of the deceased has stepped into the witness box as PW2 and filed her evidence by MACP No. 204/2017 Shyoraj Kali & Anr. Vs. Babloo & Ors. Page 6 of 18 way of affidavit as Ex. PW2/A wherein she has claimed that her deceased husband was working as a Rickshaw puller and was earning between Rs.10,000/- to Rs.15,000/- per month. However, she has not placed on record any document in order to substantiate her above claim.
15. Since the profession and income of the petitioner has not been established on record, the minimum wages of unskilled person is taken into account as per rates prevalent in U.P., which was Rs. 179.89/- per day at the time of accident. Hence, the monthly wages comes out to be Rs. 4,677/- (rounded off) (Rs. 179.89 X 26 days), which is also mentioned in the calculations filed on behalf of petitioners.
16. PW2 has stated in her affidavit that the deceased was 45 years old at the time of accident and in order to prove the age of the deceased, she has placed on record the copy of Pariwar Register. As per the aforesaid document, the birth year of the deceased is found recorded as 1965. Further, in the calculations filed on behalf of petitioners, the age of deceased is mentioned as 47 years at the relevant time of accident. Accordingly, the age of deceased at the time of accident i.e. 16.11.2012 was about 47 years. In terms of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121, which has also been approved by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors., (2017) 16 SCC 680, the nearest multiplier of '13' is applicable in the present case.
17. Now coming to calculation of loss of dependency, MACP No. 204/2017 Shyoraj Kali & Anr. Vs. Babloo & Ors. Page 7 of 18 this claim petition has been filed by two petitioners being the wife and son of the deceased. PW2 in her affidavit has stated that she and her son were dependent upon the income of the deceased. Hence, both the petitioners are considered as dependents upon the deceased. In terms of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. (Supra) and National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. (Supra), 1/3rd of earnings of deceased shall be deducted towards his personal and living expenses.
18. Further, in view of the law laid down in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. (Supra), the petitioners are also held entitled to addition of 25% of earning of the deceased towards future prospects as the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years. Thus, the loss of dependency in the present case comes to Rs.6,08,010/- {(Rs.4,677/-X 2/3 X 13 X 12 X 125/100)}.
(ii) COMPENSATION UNDER NON-PECUNIARY HEADS
19. In terms of propositions of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi (Supra), the petitioners are also held entitled to amount of Rs.15,000/- each under the head of loss of estate and funeral expenses, i.e. Rs.30,000/- under both heads. Further, in view of Full Court judgment dated 30.06.2020 passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in United India Insurance Co. Vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur & Ors. (2020) 06 SC MACP No. 204/2017 Shyoraj Kali & Anr. Vs. Babloo & Ors. Page 8 of 18 CK 0036 (Civil Appeal Nos. 2705 and 2706 of 2020), the petitioners are entitled to Rs.40,000/- each towards 'loss of consortium', in addition to Rs.30,000/- granted under the conventional head of 'loss of estate' and 'funeral expenses'.
20. Pertinently, the Hon'ble Apex Court has also held in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi (Supra) that compensation awarded under the conventional heads shall be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years and a period of 3 years since then stands already expired. Hence, the petitioners in this case are also entitled to an increase @ 10% on the amount awarded under the conventional head of 'loss of estate', 'funeral charges' and 'loss of consortium'. The petitioners are thus awarded a total sum of Rs. 1,21,000/- [(Rs.30,000 + 10% of 30,000= 33,000) + (40,000 X 2 + 10% of 40,000 X 2 = 88,000/-)] under this head.
ISSUE NO.3/RELIEF
21. In view of finding on issue number 2, the petitioners are held entitled to a sum of Rs.7,29,010/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Twenty Nine Thousand Ten only) i.e. (Rs. 6,08,010/- + 1,21,000/-) along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition. However, it is directed that the amount of interim award and interest for the suspended period, if any, during the course of this inquiry, shall be liable to be excluded from the award amount.
APPORTIONMENT
22. As already discussed, all the petitioners are considered as dependents upon the deceased. Hence, out of the MACP No. 204/2017 Shyoraj Kali & Anr. Vs. Babloo & Ors. Page 9 of 18 awarded amount along with proportionate interest, 70% share each is being given to petitioner no. 1, i.e. wife of deceased and the remaining 30% share is being given to petitioner no. 2, i.e. son of deceased.
RELEASE
23. Out of amount awarded to petitioner no. 1, 70% amount is directed to be kept with UCO Bank, Patiala House Court, New Delhi in the Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit (MACAD) in form of 40 monthly fixed deposit receipts (FDRs) of equal amounts for a period of 1 to 40 months in succession, as per scheme formulated by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 01.05.2018 in FAO No. 842/2003, titled as Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. and as implemented vide subsequent order dated 07.12.2018 and order dated 08.01.2021 passed in the said case. The amount of FDRs on maturity would be released in her savings/MACT Claims SB Account bearing No. 2172101046715, having IFSC Code CNRB0002172 and PAN Card No. EMCPK7639M, being maintained with Canara Bank, Hasanpur, Uttar Pradesh and the remaining 30% amount is also directed to be released into her above said account, which can be withdrawn through withdrawal form and utilized by her.
24. Out of amount awarded to petitioner no. 2, 50% amount is directed to be kept with UCO Bank, Patiala House Court, New Delhi in FDR with UCO Bank, Patiala House Court, New Delhi for a period of one year. The amount of FDR on maturity would be released in his saving bank account bearing No. 37818110842, having IFSC Code SBIN0000650 and PAN MACP No. 204/2017 Shyoraj Kali & Anr. Vs. Babloo & Ors. Page 10 of 18 Card No. DYVPB7201N, being maintained with State Bank of India, Hasanpur, Uttar Pradesh and the remaining 50% amount is directed to be released into his above said account, which can be withdrawn through withdrawal form and utilized by him.
25. The disbursement to the petitioners is, however, subject to addition of future interest till deposit proportionately and also deduction of proportionate tax on the interest amount or amount of interim award, if any, to/from their shares.
26. The bank shall not permit any joint names to be added in the savings bank account or MACAD scheme account of petitioners i.e. the bank account of petitioners shall be individual account and not a joint account.
27. The original fixed deposits shall be retained by the UCO Bank, PHC, New Delhi in safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR numbers, amounts, dates of maturity and maturity amounts shall be furnished by the said bank to the petitioners and the above amount shall be released in account of petitioners by the Manager, UCO Bank, PHC, ND through RTGS/NEFT/or any other electronic mode.
28. The monthly interest be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the petitioner(s) near the place of their residence.
29. The maturity amount of the FDR (s) on monthly basis net of TDS be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the above accounts of petitioners.
30. No loan, advance or withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the MACAD without permission of the Court.
MACP No. 204/2017 Shyoraj Kali & Anr. Vs. Babloo & Ors. Page 11 of 1831. The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book and/or debit card to petitioner(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 petitioner(s) so that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of the petitioner(s) from any other branch of the bank.
32. The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the petitioner(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 petitioner(s) shall produce the passbook with the necessary endorsement before the Court on the next date fixed for compliance.
33. It is clarified that the endorsement made by the bank along with the duly signed and stamped by the bank official on the passbook(s) of the petitioner(s) is sufficient compliance of clause above.
LIABILITY
34. During the course of final arguments, Ld. Counsel for Insurance Company has argued that the respondent no. 1 was not holding a valid and effective driving license at the relevant time of accident. He further argued that the recovery rights be granted in the present matter in view of the order dated 05.04.2022 passed by this Tribunal.
35. Perusal of order dated 05.04.2022 reveals that since no driving license was ever placed on record by R-1 and R-2 and in view of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, the Insurance Company need not to prove a negative fact that there was no MACP No. 204/2017 Shyoraj Kali & Anr. Vs. Babloo & Ors. Page 12 of 18 driving license as the same is now a matter of record.
36. In view of foregoing discussions, it is established on record that the respondent no. 1 was not holding a valid and effective driving license at the relevant time of accident. Hence, in the case of Giriraj Vs. Viniti Kohli & Anr. MACA No.639/19 decided on 23.09.2019, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court while relying upon the proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shamanna & Anr. Vs. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., (2018) 9 SCC 650, which in turn appreciate the law laid by the Hon'ble Apex Court in its previous judgment in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Swaran Singh, (2004) 3 SCC 297, it has been held by the Hon'ble High Court that even in case of no DL resulting in breach of conditions of insurance policy, 'principal of pay and recover' is to be applied and Insurance Co. is require to first pay the awarded amount and then to recover it from owner/driver. The Hon'ble High Court in this case had set aside the findings of a Claim Tribunal exonerating the Insurance Co. from payment of compensation on the ground of no availability of valid DL by driver of the offending vehicle and has thus held it liable to first pay the award amount to the claimant.
37. Therefore, R-3/Insurance Company is held entitled to recovery rights of the awarded amount of compensation in the present matter from R-2/owner. However, R-3 being insurer of the offending vehicle is held first liable to deposit the awarded amount in compliance of the present award with UCO Bank, Patiala House Court Branch, along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition by MACP No. 204/2017 Shyoraj Kali & Anr. Vs. Babloo & Ors. Page 13 of 18 RTGS/NEFT/IMPS in bank account being maintained in the above said bank in name of this tribunal within 30 days from today, failing which it is liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum for the period of delay. In case even after lapse of 90 days from today, respondent no. 3 fails to deposit this compensation with interest, in that event, in light of judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi passed in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Kashmiri Lal2007 ACJ 688, this compensation shall be recovered by attaching the bank account of respondent no. 3 with a cost of Rs.5,000/-.
38. The respondent no. 3 shall inform the petitioners and their counsels through registered post that the awarded amount has been deposited so as to facilitate them to collect the same.
39. A copy of this award be given to the parties free of cost or be sent to them by email. Ahlmad is directed to send a copy of the award to Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate concerned and Delhi Legal Services Authority in view of Judgment titled as Rajesh Tyagi Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. passed in FAO No.842/2003 dated 12.12.2014.
40. Further, Nazir is directed to maintain the record in Form XVIII as per the directions given by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the above case on 08.01.2021.
41. The particulars of Form-XVII of the Modified Claims Tribunal Agreed Procedure, in terms of directions given by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the above case on 08.01.2021, are as under:
1. Date of the accident 16.11.2012
2. Date of filing of Form I- First NA MACP No. 204/2017 Shyoraj Kali & Anr. Vs. Babloo & Ors. Page 14 of 18 Accident Report (FAR)
3. Date of delivery of Form-II to the NA victim(s)
4. Date of receipt of Form-III from NA the Driver
5. Date of receipt of Form-IV from NA the owner
6. Date of filing of the Form-V- NA Interim Accident Report (IAR)
7. Date of receipt of Form-VIA and NA Form VIB from the Victim (s)
8. Date of filing of Form-VII- NA Detailed Accident Report (DAR)
9. Whether there was any delay or No deficiency on the part of the Investigating Officer? If so, whether any action/direction warranted?
10. Date of appointment of the Not given Designated Officer by the Insurance Company.
11. Whether the Designated Officer of No the Insurance Company submitted his report within 30 days of the DAR?
12. Whether there was any delay or No deficiencies on the part of the Designated Officer of the Insurance Company? If so, whether any action/direction warranted?
13. Date of response of the Legal offer not filed petitioner(s) of the offer of the Insurance Company.
14. Date of the award 29.05.2023
15. Whether the petitioner(s) were Yes directed to open savings bank account(s) near their place of MACP No. 204/2017 Shyoraj Kali & Anr. Vs. Babloo & Ors. Page 15 of 18 residence?
16. Date of order by which 19.01.2018 petitioner(s) were 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 petitioner (s) and make an endorsement to this effect on the passbook(s).
17. Date on which the petitioner(s) 13.12.2022 produced the passbook of their savings bank account near the place of their residence along with the endorsement, PAN Card and Adhaar Card?
18. Permanent Residential Address of Village Alipur Milak the petitioner(s) Tehsil, Hasanpur, District J.P. Nagar, Uttar Pradesh-
244241.
19. Whether the petitioner(s) savings Yes bank account(s) is near his place of residence?
20. Whether the petitioner(s) were Yes examined at the time of passing of the award to ascertain his/their financial condition?
42. File be consigned to Record room after compliance of necessary formalities. Separate file be prepared for compliance report and be put up on 06.09.2023.
Announced in the open court. (Shefali Barnala Tandon) on 29.05.2023 PO/MACT, New Delhi Encl: SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN FORM XV MACP No. 204/2017 Shyoraj Kali & Anr. Vs. Babloo & Ors. Page 16 of 18 SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN FORM XV
1. Date of accident 16.11.2012
2. Name of the deceased Sh. Parkash
3. Age of the deceased Around 47 years
4. Occupation of the deceased Minimum wages of unskilled workers in U.P.
5. Income of the deceased Rs. 4,677/- per month
6. Name, age and relationship of legal representative of deceased :
Sl. No. Name Age Relation
1. Shyoraj Kali 40 years Wife
2. Ram Bharose 18 years Son
Sl. No. Head Amount Awarded
(Rs.)
7. Income of deceased (A) Rs. 4,677/-
8. Add : Future Prospects (B) Rs. 1,169.25
9. Less-Personal expenses of the Rs. 1,948.75 deceased (C)
10. Monthly loss of dependency Rs. 3,897.5 [(A+B) - C = D]
11. Annual loss of dependency Rs. 46,770/-
(D x 12) 12. Multiplier 13
13. Total loss of dependency Rs. 6,08,010/-
(D x 12 x E = F)
14. Medical Expenses (G) Nil
15. Compensation for loss of love Nil and affection (H)
16. Compensation for loss of Rs. 88,000/-
MACP No. 204/2017 Shyoraj Kali & Anr. Vs. Babloo & Ors. Page 17 of 18consortium (I)
17. Compensation for loss of estate Rs. 16,500/-
(J)
18. Compensation towards funeral Rs. 16,500/-
expenses (K)
19. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs. 6,79,010/-
(F + G + H + I + J+K =L) (after deducting
the amount of
interim award)
20. RATE OF INTEREST 7.5% pa from date
AWARDED of filing of claim
petition till the date
of award to be
deposited in 30 days
and 9% thereafter.
21. Interest amount up to the date of Rs. 2,95,648.40 award (M)
22. Total amount including interest Rs. 9,74,658.4 (L + M) (rounded off to Rs. 9,75,000/-)
23. Award amount released P-1 = 30% share P-2 = 50% share
24. Award amount kept in FDRs/ P-1 = 70% share MACAD P-2 = 50% share
25. Mode of disbursement of the Through Bank award amount to petitioner(s)
26. Next date for compliance of the 06.09.2023 award (Shefali Barnala Tandon) PO/MACT, New Delhi 29.05.2023 MACP No. 204/2017 Shyoraj Kali & Anr. Vs. Babloo & Ors. Page 18 of 18