Delhi District Court
Dhani Ram vs Sandeep Oroan And Ors on 20 November, 2024
IN THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
NORTH WEST, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
PRESIDED BY SH. SHIVAJI ANAND,
==============================================
UID No./CNR No. DLNW01-001025-2020 MACT CASE No. 57/20 FIR No. 269/19, PS Begumpur In the matter of :
1. Dhani Ram S/o Sh. Gokul, R/o H.No.517, Gali No.2, Shree Enclave, Pansali, Delhi.
....Petitioner Vs.
1. Sandeep Oroan S/o Sh. Ram Oraon R/o H.No.558, Village Pooth Kalan, Delhi and Village Julkki, PO & PS Lapung, District Ranchi, Jharkhand.
....Driver/R1
2. Rajiv Joshi S/o Hari Shankar R/o H.No.44, Defence Apartment, Inder Enclave, Paschim Vihar, Delhi.
....Owner/R2
3. New India Insurance Company Ltd.
O/o N-34, Bombay Life Building, Connaught Circus, New Delhi.
....Insurance Company/R3 Date of institution of the DAR : 24.01.2020 Date of final Arguments : 15.10.2024 Date of Decision : 20.11.2024 Appearance (s) : Sh. Pradip Kumar Shamar, Ld. Counsel for petitioner.
Sh. A. K. Singh, Ld. counsel for R3.
MACT Case No. 57/2020 (FIR No.269/19) Dhani Ram Vs. Sandeep Oroan & ors.
Page no. 1 of 17
Digitally signed
by SHIVAJI
SHIVAJI ANAND
Date:
ANAND 2024.11.20
17:05:06
JUDGMENT/AWARD
1. Vide this judgment/award, I shall dispose off the Detailed Accident Report (in short, the DAR) filed by IO ASI Dinesh Kumar in FIR No.269/19, PS Begumpur, Delhi pertaining to injuries sustained by Dhani Ram (in short, the injured) in road accident occurred on 18.07.2019.
FACTUAL POSITION AND PLEADINGS
2. The brief facts relevant for disposal of the present DAR are that on 18.07.2019 the petitioner left for home from his shop situated at Sector-3, Rohini, Delhi in his vehicle bearing bearing registration no.DL-11SH-5178 (in short, "the scooty"). When he reached at about 11:15 pm, he was crossing the traffic signal at Deep Vihar Chowk, Delhi suddenly a vehicle bearing registration no.DL- 10C-1718 (in short, "the offending vehicle") which was being driven by its driver/respondent no.1 at very high speed rashly and negligently without proper look out and without obeying traffic rules came from the side of Prem Adhar Hospital, Delhi and hit the abovesaid scooty. As a result, the petitioner fell down and sustained grievous injuries.
3. However, the petitioner was taken to BSA Hospital, Rohini, Delhi where his MLC bearing no.9849/19 was prepared by the doctors.
4. An FIR No. 269/19, PS Begumpur, Delhi was registered U/s 279/338 IPC in this regard.
MACT Case No. 57/2020 (FIR No.269/19) Dhani Ram Vs. Sandeep Oroan & ors.
Page no. 2 of 17 Digitally signed SHIVAJI by SHIVAJI ANAND ANAND Date: 2024.11.20
5. Written statement/reply has not been filed on behalf of respondent no.1 and 2.
6. Legal offer was filed on behalf of insurance company.
ISSUES:
7. Following issues were framed by this Tribunal on 19.02.2021:
1. Whether petitioner Dhani Ram S/o Sh. Gokul suffered injuries in road traffic accident on 18.07.2019 at about 11:15 pm at Deep Vihar Red Light Chowk, Rithala Bawana Road, Delhi due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle i.e. car bearing registration no.DL-10C-1718 which was being driven by driver Sandeep Oroan S/o Sh. Ram Oraon on the said date, time and place?OPP.
2. Whether the petitioner/injured is entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP.
3. Relief.
PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE
8. Thereafter, matter was listed for recording of evidence. In order to prove his case, petitioner Dhani Ram examined himself as PW-1 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex. P- 1 bearing his signatures at point A and B. He has relied upon the documents Ex.PW-1/1 to Ex.PW-1/X.
9. In his cross examination done by ld. Counsel for R3, PW-1 deposed that he was having his DL at the time of accident. He denied the suggestion that he did not have any DL till date. He had not placed any documentary proof on record to show that his monthly income was Rs.15,000/- at the time of accident. He further MACT Case No. 57/2020 (FIR No.269/19) Dhani Ram Vs. Sandeep Oroan & ors.
Page no. 3 of 17
Digitally signed
by SHIVAJI
SHIVAJI ANAND
Date:
ANAND 2024.11.20
17:05:15
denied the suggestion that the claims made by him with regard to the charges for attendant, medical treatment, special diet and conveyance charges were false and flimsy. He further denied the suggestion that the record of medical treatment filed by him was false and fabricated. He further denied the suggestion that the accident in question happened due to his negligence as he was jumping the red light at that time. He further denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely.
10. Vide order dated 18.07.2024, PW-1 again deposed himself and had brought the medical treatment bills which are Ex.PW-1/X (colly 45 pages) and the disability certificate issued by RML Hospital, New Delhi is Ex.PW-1/Y.
11. In his cross-examination done by Ld. counsel for R3, he deposed that he is not working anywhere. He is unemployed. He denied the suggestion that all the treatment record and medical bills were false and fabricated. He further denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely.
12. Thereafter, petitioners evidence was closed and matter was listed for recording of respondents evidence.
RESPONDENT'S EVIDENCE:
13. No evidence has been led by respondents. Thus, respondents evidence was closed and matter was listed for final arguments.
Digitally signed by SHIVAJISHIVAJI ANAND ANAND Date:
2024.11.20 17:05:20 +0530 MACT Case No. 57/2020 (FIR No.269/19) Dhani Ram Vs. Sandeep Oroan & ors.
Page no. 4 of 17 ARGUMENTS & FINDINGS:
14. I have heard ld. Counsel for the petitioner and Ld. Counsel for insurance company and have gone through the testimonies of the witnesses, the pleadings and the documents. My issue wise findings in the case are as under :-
ISSUE NO.1
1. Whether petitioner Dhani Ram S/o Sh. Gokul suffered injuries in road traffic accident on 18.07.2019 at about 11:15 pm at Deep Vihar Red Light Chowk, Rithala Bawana Road, Delhi due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle i.e. car bearing registration no.DL-10C-1718 which was being driven by driver Sandeep Oroan S/o Sh. Ram Oraon on the said date, time and place?OPP.
15. 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 by preponderance of probabilities only and not by strict rules of evidence or beyond reasonable doubts as are required in a criminal prosecution. The burden of proof in a civil case is never as heavy as that is required in a criminal case, but in a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, this burden is infact even lesser than that in a civil case. Reference in this regard can be made to the propositions of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bimla Devi and others Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others, reported in (2009) 13 SC 530, which were reiterated in the subsequent MACT Case No. 57/2020 (FIR No.269/19) Dhani Ram Vs. Sandeep Oroan & ors.
Page no. 5 of 17
Digitally signed
by SHIVAJI
SHIVAJI ANAND
ANAND Date:
2024.11.20
judgment in the case of Parmeshwari Vs. Amir Chand and others 2011 (1) SCR 1096 (Civil Appeal No.1082 of 2011) and also recently in another case Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., 2018 Law Suit (SC) 303.
16. As already discussed above, the petitioner examined himself as PW-1 in order to prove the facts regarding the occurrence of accident. None of the respondents could bring any material on record which was inconsistent with the version of the petitioner. There is nothing on record which suggests that oral testimony of PW-1 could not be believed. As such, this Tribunal finds it appropriate to hold that the oral testimony of PW-1 is reliable and trustworthy.
17. The very fact that R-1 has already been chargesheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 279/338 IPC in the above criminal case/FIR in itself is a strong circumstance to support the above oral testimony of PW1 and the case of petitioner on this issue. The copies of FIR, Chargesheet and MLC, also corroborate the oral testimony of PW1.
18. Besides the above, R-1 himself was the best witness who could have stepped into the witness box to challenge the depositions being made by PW1 regarding the above accident and its manner etc., but he has not done so. Therefore, an adverse inference on this aspect is also required to be drawn against the respondents in view of the law laid down in case of Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. MACT Case No. 57/2020 (FIR No.269/19) Dhani Ram Vs. Sandeep Oroan & ors.
Page no. 6 of 17
Digitally signed
by SHIVAJI
SHIVAJI ANAND
Date:
ANAND 2024.11.20
17:05:34
Kamlesh, reported in 2009 (3) AD (Delhi) 310.
19. In view of the above discussion, this tribunal is of considered opinion that R-1 is guilty of rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle at the relevant time leading to the accident in which petitioner sustained grievous injuries.
20. The medical treatment documents placed on record by the petitioner shows that he suffered grievous injuries on account of neglect and default of R-1 while driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time. This issue thus stands decided against the respondents and in favour of the petitioner.
ISSUE NO. 2"'Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?"
21. As the issue no.1 has been proved in affirmative and in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner has become entitled to be compensated for the injuries suffered in the above accident, but the computation of compensation and liability to pay the same are required to be decided.
22. In terms of provisions contained in Section 168 of the MV Act the compensation which is to be awarded by this tribunal is required to be 'just'. In the injury cases a claimant is entitled to two different kinds of compensations i.e. pecuniary as well as non-pecuniary damages. The pecuniary damages or special damages are those damages which are awarded and MACT Case No. 57/2020 (FIR No.269/19) Dhani Ram Vs. Sandeep Oroan & ors.
Page no. 7 of 17 Digitally signed by SHIVAJI SHIVAJI ANAND ANAND Date:
2024.11.20 designed to make good the losses which are capable of being calculated in terms of money and the object of awarding these damages is to indemnify the claimant for the expenses which she had already incurred or is likely to incur in respect of the injuries suffered by her in the accident. The non-pecuniary or general damages are those damages which are incapable of being assessed which includes the compensation for the mental or physical shock, pain and sufferings, loss of amenities of life and disfiguration etc. The above categories falling under both the heads of compensation are not exhaustive in nature but only illustrative. It is also necessary to state here that no amount of money or compensation can put the injured/claimant exactly in the same position or place where she was before the accident and an effort is to be made only to reasonably compensate her or to put her almost in the same place or position where she could have been if the alleged accident had not taken place and this compensation is to be assessed in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner. Reference in this regard can be made on some of important judgments on the subject like the judgment in the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Anr., (2011) 1 SCC 343.
23. Legal offer was filed on behalf of insurance company, thus, it shows that the insurance company admits its liability and that proves that the accident had occurred due to rash and neglignet driving of R1/driver of the offending vehicle.
24. In light of the above legal propositions, the amount of MACT Case No. 57/2020 (FIR No.269/19) Dhani Ram Vs. Sandeep Oroan & ors.
Page no. 8 of 17
Digitally signed
by SHIVAJI
SHIVAJI ANAND
Date:
ANAND 2024.11.20
compensation which could be considered to be 'just' in the opinion of this tribunal shall be as under:-
(i) Medical or Treatment Expenses
25. The petitioner has placed on judicial file all medical bills Ex.PW-1/X (Colly) for an amount of Rs.9,192/-. Thus, the petitioner is entitled to amount Rs.9,192/- under this head.
(ii) Pain and Suffering
26. As per disability certificate of petitioner, he has suffered 50% permanent disability in relation to Left Upper Limbs and left Lower Limbs. The said claim is duly corroborated by the medical records. The petitioner was hospitalized for a long term. It is not possible to quantify the compensation admissible to injured for the shock, pain and sufferings etc. which he actually suffered because of the above injuries, but as stated above, an effort has to be made to compensate him for the same in a just and reasonable manner. Hence, keeping in view the extent and nature of the injuries suffered by injured and duration of the treatment taken by him etc., an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- is being awarded to his towards pain and sufferings during the said period of his treatment and immobility. Thus, he is awarded a total amount of Rs.2,00,000/- under this head.
(iii) Loss of Actual Earnings
27. In his evidence by way of affidavit, the petitioner has deposed that at the relevant time, he was used to run a shop and MACT Case No. 57/2020 (FIR No.269/19) Dhani Ram Vs. Sandeep Oroan & ors.
Page no. 9 of 17 Digitally signed SHIVAJI by SHIVAJI ANAND ANAND 17:06:03 Date: 2024.11.20 +0530 was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. He could not attend his work from the date of accident till date. He could not be able to do any work in near future due to disability. In order to support his abovesaid claim as to his employment and monthly income, petitioner has not filed any documents on record. In the above facts and circumstances, it would be appropriate that the monthly income of petitioner be assessed as per the minimum wages payable to unskilled person in Delhi at the relevant time. As per relevant notification, the minimum wages admissible to unskilled person as on 18.07.2019 in the Delhi were Rs.14,468/- per month. Keeping in view the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner as well as his prolonged medical treatment, it could be safely assumed that the petitioner would not have been able to resume his work/ vocation for one year i.e. 12 months. As such, the petitioner is held entitled to a sum of Rs.1,73,616/- (Rs.14,468/- x 12). The said sum is awarded to the petitioner under this head.
(iv) Loss of future earnings due to disability
28. Petitioner has become permanently disabled after the accident and cannot do the work in near future. Petitioner has suffered 50% permanent physical impairment. The above disability would definitely lower/ reduce the employability of any unskilled person and thereby hamper his earning capacity. In the absence of any material to the contrary, it would be appropriate to hold that the functional disability of petitioner be assessed at 50%. This Tribunal has already assumed the monthly MACT Case No. 57/2020 (FIR No.269/19) Dhani Ram Vs. Sandeep Oroan & ors.
Page no. 10 of 17
Digitally signed
by SHIVAJI
SHIVAJI ANAND
ANAND Date:
2024.11.20
income of petitioner to be Rs.14,468/- at the relevant time. As far as the age of petitioner at the time of accident is concerned, as per the photocopy of petitioner's aadhar card, the date of birth of petitioner is 01.01.1966. By calculation, the age of petitioner as on the date of accident i.e. 18.07.2019 was 53 years 6 months 17 days. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr.,(2009) 6 SCC 121, which has also been upheld by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent judgment dated 31.10.2017 given in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. SLP (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014, the multiplier of '11' is held applicable for calculating the loss of future earnings of petitioner arising out of her above disability. The petitioner is also entitled to future prospects as per the observations made by a Three Judge Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Erudhaya Priya Vs. State Express Transport Corporation Ltd., MANU/SC/0545/2020 [please see para 7 (b)]. Thus, the loss of future earnings of petitioner due to her above injury and permanent disability comes to is calculated as follows:
S. Head Amount (Rs.) Remarks
No.
1 Monthly Income of 14,468
injured (A)
2 Monthly loss of earning 7,234 50% of (A) (as
(B) petitioner sustained
grievous injuries and
suffered 50 %
disability
MACT Case No. 57/2020 (FIR No.269/19) Dhani Ram Vs. Sandeep Oroan & ors.
Page no. 11 of 17
Digitally signed
by SHIVAJI
SHIVAJI ANAND
Date:
ANAND 2024.11.20
17:06:14
3 Annual Loss of earning 86,808 (B) x 12 = (C)
(C)
4 Multiplier @ 11
5 Total Loss of earnings 9,54,888 (C) x 11(multiplier) =
(D)
(D)
6 Add: Future prospects @ 95,488.8 10% of (D) = (E)
10% (E)
Rounded Off to: 10,50,377
approx.
(v) Conveyance and Special Diet
29. Petitioner has claimed the compensation under this Head.
He claimed separate compensation under these heads. But no documents has been filed by the petitioner regarding the conveyance and special diet. In view of the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner, the extent of permanent physical disability and the prolonged period of his medical treatment, the petitioner is granted a sum of Rs.50,000/- each under Conveyance and Special diet.
(vi) Attendant Charges
30. As the petitioner has sustained 50% disability, thus, the petitioner after the accident need one attendant to take care of him for all purposes. Even if the petitioner is taken care off by his family members, the time and efforts spent by the family members of petitioner need to be calculated in terms of money as it would be additional burden on the family. Therefore, this court has right to rationalize the attendant charges that would be required in the MACT Case No. 57/2020 (FIR No.269/19) Dhani Ram Vs. Sandeep Oroan & ors.
Page no. 12 of 17 Digitally signed SHIVAJI by SHIVAJI ANAND present case. Keeping in view of facts and circumstances, it can be assumed that monthly charges for attendant would be Rs.10,000/- per month even at the lowest side. To further rationalize the same with the expected life of the petitioner, the same is multiplied with 12 for one year and with relevant multiplier of 11 as already mentioned. Thus, award amount of Rs.10,000 x 12 x 11 = Rs.13,20,000/- towards Attendant Charges.
(vi)LOSS OF GENERAL AMENITIES & ENJOYMENT OF LIFE
31. As already mentioned above, there is sufficient evidence on record to establish that the petitioner had sustained grievous injuries and disability. Thus, the petitioner would not be able to enjoy general amenities of life after the accident in question, during rest of his life and his quality of life has been definitely affected. After disability, the petitioner would have permanent loss of amenities and enjoyment of life. The same is very difficult to be calculated in terms of money. To rationalize the same, the yearly loss under this head is calculated to be Rs.20,000/-. To further rationalize the same with the expected life of the petitioner, the yearly loss is multiplied with relevant multiplier of 11 as already mentioned. Thus, award amount of Rs.20,000 x 11 = Rs.2,20,000/- towards loss of general amenities and enjoyment of life is granted to the petitioner.
Thus, the total compensation is assessed as under : -
S. No. Head Amount
1 Medical Expenses 9,192
2 Pain and Suffering 2,00,000
MACT Case No. 57/2020 (FIR No.269/19) Dhani Ram Vs. Sandeep Oroan & ors.
Page no. 13 of 17 Digitally signed SHIVAJI by SHIVAJI ANAND ANAND Date: 2024.11.20 3 Loss of actual earning 1,73,616 4 Loss of future earning due to disability 10,50,377 5 Conveyance and special diet 1,00,000 6 Attendant Charges 13,20,000 7 Loss of General Amenities and enjoyment of 2,20,000 life Total 30,73,185 Issue No.3/Relief
32. The petitioner is thus entitled to a sum of Rs.30,73,185/- (Rupees Thirty Lacs Seventy Three Thousand One Hundred Eighty Five only) along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the DAR i.e. 24.01.2020 till actual payment. 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 above amount and calculations of compensation.
LIABILITY
33. As already stated above, R-1 being the driver and principal tortfeasor and R-2 being owner of the offending vehicle, and also being vicariously liable for the acts of R-1, are jointly and severally liable to pay the awarded amount of compensation to petitioner. However, since the offending vehicle was insured with R-3 at the time of accident, therefore, R-3 is liable to indemnify R-2 in respect of above liability. As such R-3 is directed to deposit the above award amount within 30 days as per above order, failing MACT Case No. 57/2020 (FIR No.269/19) Dhani Ram Vs. Sandeep Oroan & ors.
Page no. 14 of 17
Digitally signed
by SHIVAJI
SHIVAJI ANAND
ANAND Date:
2024.11.20
which R3 shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a for the period of delay. Issue No.2 is decided accordingly.
34. Respondent no.3/Insurance Co. ltd. is hereby directed to deposit the Award amount in SBI, Rohini Courts Branch within 30 days as per above order, failing which they shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a for the period of delay. The parties are directed to download the digital copy of judgment online.
RELEASE
35. It is noted that statement of claimant/ petitioner in terms of Clause 26 MCTAP was recorded on 20.11.2024. Photocopy of the passbook of the bank account of the petitioner maintained with Punjab National Bank, Sector-5, Rohini, Delhi was also placed on record at that time. Photocopies of Aadhar Card and PAN Card were also placed on record by the petitioner, apart from two coloured photographs of the petitioner.
36. Out of the total awarded amount, an amount of Rs.5,00,000/-
be released to the petitioner in his MACT Bank account bearing no.4171000100134680, IFSC Code: PUNB0417100, Punjab National Bank, Sector-5, Rohini, Delhi and the remaining amount alongwith interest amount is directed to be kept in the form of FDRs in the multiples of Rs.20,000/- each for a period of one month, two months, three months and so on and so forth, having cumulative interest.
37. The following conditions are to be adhered to by SBI, MACT Case No. 57/2020 (FIR No.269/19) Dhani Ram Vs. Sandeep Oroan & ors.
Page no. 15 of 17 Digitally signed by SHIVAJI SHIVAJI ANAND ANAND Date:
2024.11.20 Rohini Courts, Delhi with respect to the fixed deposits:-
(a) The Bank shall not permit any joint 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 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.
38. Concerned Manager, SBI, Rohini Court Branch is directed to transfer the disbursed amount immediately to the petitioner in his MACT saving bank accounts, on completing necessary formalities MACT Case No. 57/2020 (FIR No.269/19) Dhani Ram Vs. Sandeep Oroan & ors.
Page no. 16 of 17
Digitally signed
by SHIVAJI
SHIVAJI ANAND
ANAND Date:
2024.11.20
as per rules.
39. Copy of this Award alongwith one photograph each, specimen signatures, copy of bank passbook and copy of residence proof of the petitioner, be sent to Nodal Officer of SBI, Rohini Court, Branch, Delhi for information and necessary compliance.
40. Form V and IVB in terms of MCTAP are annexed herewith as Annexure-A.
41. A separate file be prepared for compliance report by the Nazir and put up the same on 20.12.2024.
File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024. Digitally signed by SHIVAJI SHIVAJI ANAND Date:
ANAND 2024.11.20
17:06:46
+0530
(SH. SHIVAJI ANAND)
DJ-1+MACT, NORTH WEST,
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
MACT Case No. 57/2020 (FIR No.269/19) Dhani Ram Vs. Sandeep Oroan & ors.
Page no. 17 of 17