Delhi District Court
Rahul Kapoor vs Md. Guddu on 5 July, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SH SANJAY KUMAR AGGARWAL:
PRESIDING OFFICER:MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL:
(WEST):DELHI.
Case No. 816/12
Rahul Kapoor,
S/o Sh. Narender Kapoor,
R/o B-269-270, Block B,
J.J.Colony, Raghubir Nagar, Delhi.
.......Petitioner in the First Petition
Case No. 12/13
Sh. Bharat Nagar
S/o Sh. Nand Ram,
R/o A-193, J.J.Colony,
Raghubir Nagar, Delhi.
.......Petitioner in the Second Petition
VERSUS
1. Md. Guddu, S/o Md. Inshul
R/o Guru Sahay Lane, Nala Road,
Bankipur, Kadamkuan, Patna Sikni. Latehar.
Also at: A-324, Shakar Pur
J.J.Colony, Delhi. (Driver)
2. Md. Nihal S/o Md. Jainul,
R/o A-323-324, Shakar Pur,
Delhi. (owner)
3. TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd.
1st Floor, Berjaya House,
Community Centre, New Friends Colony,
New Delhi. (insurer)
.............Respondents in both petitions
Date of institution of First petition : 16/11/2012 Date of institution of Second petition : 08/01/2013 Date of reserving judgment/order : 07/05/2013 Date of pronouncement : 05/07/2013 Consolidated award bearing Suit no. 816/12 & 12/13 Page no.1/14 AWARD:
1. By this judgment- cum- award, I shall dispose of both these petitions bearing suit no. 816/12 and 12/13 (hereinafter called the first petition and the second petition respectively ) filed by the petitioners u/s 166 and 140 Motor Vehicle Act 1988 amended upto date ( hereinafter referred as Act). The first and second petitions have been filed by the the petitioners themselves for injuries sustained by them in the vehicular accident.
Since both these petitions arise out of the same motor vehicle accident, they can be conveniently disposed of together.
2. Both these petitions were consolidated vide order dated 08/01/2013 and the first petition bearing No. 816/12 was ordered to be treated as lead case.
3. The case of the petitioners is that on 03/07/2012 at about 11.40 a.m while the petitioner in the first petition was going on a motorcycle alongwith his friend who is the petitioner in the second petition and while they reached at Road No. 28, Ghode Wala Mandir Road, Near Ambedkar Ashram, Raghubir Nagar, Delhi in the meantime the offending vehicle bearing No. DL-1M-4425 (Truck) which was being driven by its driver/respondent No.1 rashly and negligently hit the aforesaid motor cycle. Due to the said impact, both petitioners sustained injuries. In total the petitioner in the first petition has claimed total sum of Rs. 30 Lakhs and petitioner in the second petition has claimed Rs. 8 Lakhs for the injuries sustained by them in the vehicular accident.
4. The written statement was filed by respondents No.1 and 2 wherein they categorically denied the rash and negligent aspect and also termed the contents of the petition to the false one.
5. The written statement was filed by respondent no.3, insurance company wherein it was admitted that the offending vehicle was insured on the date and time of accident but categorically denied the contents of the same.
6. On the pleadings of the parties, the following modified consolidated issues were framed for consideration in first petition and second petition by this Tribunal on 08/01/2013.
Consolidated award bearing Suit no. 816/12 & 12/13 Page no.2/14
1.Whether the petitioners Sh. Rahul & Sh. Bharat Nagar suffered injuries in an accident that took place on 03/07/2012 at about 08.00 a.m. involving Truck bearing No. DL-1M-4425 driven by the Respondent No.1 , owned by the Respondent No.2A and the Respondent No.2 and insured with the Respondent No.3? OPP
2.Whether petitioner/ petitioners is entitled to any compensation? If so to what amount and from whom?
3. Relief
7. In order to establish its claim, the petitioner in first petition examined himself as PW-1; the petitioner in the second petition examined himself as PW-2 . The respondents did not examine any witness in their defence.
8. I have thoroughly gone through the testimony of the witnesses and perused the record. I have also given thoughtful consideration to the arguments addressed by learned counsel for the insurance company. My findings on various issues are as under :-
ISSUE NO.1 IN BOTH PETITIONS
9. Since the present petition is under Section 166 of M V Act, it was the bounden duty of the petitioners to prove that the respondent No.1 was rash and negligent in driving the vehicle at the time of accident.
10. The police have filed the Detailed Accident Report (DAR) on record i. e the copy of FIR etc of bearing No. 253/12, P.S. Rajouri Garden u/s 279/338 IPC.
11. The PW-1 & PW-2 have explained the mode and manner of the accident in their affidavit, Ex. PW1/A & PW-2/A respectively to the effect that on the date of accident while the petitioner in the first petition was going on a motorcycle alongwith his friend who is the petitioner in the second petition, in the meantime the offending vehicle bearing No. DL-1M-4425 (Truck) which was being driven by its driver/respondent No.1 rashly and negligently hit them. Due to the said impact, both petitioners sustained injuries. The cross-examination carried on by the respondent No. 3 not suggestive of anything which may discard the claim of the petitioners that the driver of the offending vehicle was not rash and negligent at the time of accident.
Consolidated award bearing Suit no. 816/12 & 12/13 Page no.3/14
12. To determine the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle, I am being guided by the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in 2009 ACJ 287, National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pushpa Rana wherein in the Hon'ble High Court held that in case the petitioner files the certified copy of the criminal record or the criminal record showing the competition of the investigation by the police or the issuance of charge sheet under section 279/304 A IPC or the certified copy of the FIR or in addition the recovery memo on the mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle, these documents are sufficient proof to reach to the conclusion that the driver was negligent. It was further held that the proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act are not akin to the proceedings in a civil suit and hence strict rules of evidence are not required to be followed in this regard. Further, in Kaushnumma Begum and others v/s New India Assurance Company Limited, 2001 ACJ 421 SC the issue of wrongful act or omission on the part of driver of the motor vehicle involved in the accident has been left to a secondary importance and mere use or involvement of motor vehicle in causing bodily injuries or death to a human being or damage to property would made the petition maintainable under section 166 and 140 of the Act. It is also settled law that the term rashness and negligence has to be construed lightly while making a decision on a petition for claim for the same as compared to the word rashness and negligence as finds mention in the Indian Penal Code. This is because the chapter in the Motor Vehicle Act dealing with compensation is a benevolent legislation and not a penal one.
13. Further recently the Hon'ble High of Delhi in MAC App. No.200/2012 in case titled as United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vd. Smt. Rinki @ Rinku & Ors decided on 23/07/2012 by Hon'ble Mr. Justice G. P. Mittal, held as under:
"The Claims Tribunal was conscious of the fact that negligence is a sine qua non to a Petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988(the Act). It is also true that the proceedings for grant of compensation under the Act are neither governed by the criminal procedures nor are a civil suit. A reference may be made to a judgment of the Supreme Court Bimla Devi and Ors. V Himachal Road Transport Corporation and Ors, (2009) 13 SC 530 where it was held as under:
Consolidated award bearing Suit no. 816/12 & 12/13 Page no.4/14 "15. In a situation of this nature, the Tribunal has rightly taken a holistic view of the matter. It was necessary to be borne in mind that strict proof of any accident caused by a particular bus in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the claimant. The claimants were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied."
14. Therefore, reading all the documents filed by the petitioner as a whole it is clear that respondent no. 1 was driving the vehicle in rash and negligent manner.
15. The issue no. 1 ,therefore, stands in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
COMPENSATION IN FIRST PETITON (Suit no. 816/12) NATURE OF INJURIES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF MEDICAL BILLS:
16. As per the discharge summary issued by Guru Gobind Singh Hospital, Ex. PW1/6, the petitioner has got crush injuries.. The petitioner had filed the bills to the tune of Rs. 33,097/-. Accordingly, I hereby grant sum of Rs. 33,097/- to the claimant for medical expenses.-
COMPENSATION ON ACCOUNT OF DISABILITY& OTHER HEADS
17. The disability certificate, Ex. PW1/1 issued by Guru Govind Singh Hospital suggests that petitioner in the first petition had got mid foot amputation left side having 40% permanent disability in relation to lower limb. The certificate regarding the disability received in Court which was directly sent by the Medical superintendent, who had constituted the board under the orders of this Court.
18. It is now settled law that it is the percentage of functional disability arising out of physical disability which matters while arising the compensation arising out of disability. On this aspect, I gain support from judgment titled as Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Company Limited, (2010) 10 SCC 254 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with the case of disability of an engineering student. The Supreme Court observed that while awarding compensation in personal injury cases, an attempt should be made to put the injured in the same position as he was as far as money is concerned. In para 9 of the report, the Supreme Court held as under:-
Consolidated award bearing Suit no. 816/12 & 12/13 Page no.5/14 "9.We do not intend to review in detail state of authorities in relation to assessment of all damages for personal injury. Suffice it to say that the basis of assessment of all damages for personal injury is compensation. The whole idea is to put the claimant in the same position as he was insofar as money can. Perfect compensation is hardly possible but one has to keep in mind that the victim has done no wrong; he has suffered at the hands of the wrongdoer and the court must take care to give him full and fair compensation for that he had suffered."
19. Further in Niazam's Institute of Medical Sciences v. Prasanth S. Dhananka & Ors; (2009) 6 SCC 1, the Supreme Court emphasized that cases of serious injuries in motor vehicle accident are wrose than the death cases because the victim and his family suffers throughout life. Para 90 of the report is extracted hereunder:-
"90. At the same time we often find that a person injured in an accident leaves his family in greater distress vis-a-viz a family in greater distress vis-a-vis a family in a case of death. I n the latter case, the initial shock gives way to a feeling of resignation and acceptance, and in time, compels the family to move on. The case of an injured and disabled person is, however, more pitiable ad the feeling of hurt , helplessness, despair and often destitution enures every day. The support that is needed by a severely handicapped person comes at an enourmous price, physical, financial and emotional, not only on the victim but even more so on his family and attendants and the stress saps their energy and destroys their equanimity."
20. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Raj Kumar v Ajay Kumar & Anr., reported in 2011(1) SCC 324 also held as under:
"11. What requires to be assessed by the Tribunal is the effect of th permanently disability on the earning capacity of the injured; and after assessing the loss of earning capacity in terms of a percentage of the income, it has to be quantified in terns of money, to arrive at the future loss of earnings(by applying the standard multiplier method used to determine loss of dependency). We may however note that in some cases, on appreciation of evidence and assessment, the Tribunal may find that percentage of loss of earning capacity as a result of the permanent disability, is approximately the same as the percentage of permanent disability in which case, of course, the Tribunal will adopt the said percentage for determination of compensation ( see for example, the decisions of this Court in Arvind Kumar Mishra v New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 2010(10) SCC 254 and Yadava Kumar v D. Consolidated award bearing Suit no. 816/12 & 12/13 Page no.6/14 M. National Insurance Co. Ltd. 2010(10) SCC 341."
14. For example, if the left hand of a claimant is amputated, the permanent physical or functional disablement may be assessed around 60%. If the claimant was a driver or a carpenter, the actual loss of earning capacity may virtually be hundred percent, if he is neither able to drive or do carpentry . On the other hand, if the claimant was a clerk in government service, the loss of his left hand may not result in loss of employment and he may still be continued as a clerk as he could perform his clerical functions; and in that event the loss of earning capacity will not be 100% as in the case of a driver or carpenter, nor 60% which is the actual physical disability, but far less. In fact, there may not be any need to award any compensation under the head of ' loss of future earnings', if the claimant continues in government service, though he may be awarded compensation under the head of loss of amenities as a consequence of losing his hand. Sometimes the injured claimant may be continued in service but may not found suitable for discharging the duties attached to the post or job which he was earlier holding, on account of his disability, and may therefore be shifted to some other suitable but lesser post with lesser emolument, in which case there should be a limited award under the head of loss of future earning capacity, taking note of the reduced earning capacity."
21. For deciding the physical disability qua earning capacity, I am further fortified by the view of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled ' Sanjay Vs. Suresh Chand & Ors , FAO No. 445/2000 decided by Hon'ble Mr. Justice G. P. Mittal on 03/08/2012, wherein it was held as under:-
"11. The Appellant's photograph on the disability certificate Ex. P-70 and the another photograph on Trial Court record would simply reveal not only immense pain and suffering but humiliation which the Appellant has to suffer day in and day out when he walks to the Hospital with a tube just above his male organ and a catheter to pass urine. It is established that the Appellant cannot carry out any work whatsoever. The loss of earning capacity in his case would be 100%."
22. Keeping in view the testimony of the petitioner and further after gaining guidance from aforesaid from aforesaid judgment in Sanjay's case, clubbed with the report of the doctor who had examined the petitioner in first petition as to disability as discussed herein above, it appears to me that 40% clinical permanent disability will effect approximately 70% on the earning capacity of the petitioner. This is because the left foot of the petitioner in the first petition has got amputated due to accidental injuries Consolidated award bearing Suit no. 816/12 & 12/13 Page no.7/14 and he would not be able to properly stand without support.
23. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Sanjay's case(supra) gave certain observation and awarded a sum in case where the claimant had got 56.5% clinical disability but Hon'ble High Court treated it to be as 100% on earning capacity which are detailed down as under:-
Sr. Compensation under various heads Awarded by this No. Court
1. Effect on her future life Rs. 3,43,137/-
2. Pain and suffering Rs. 1,50,000/-
3. Loss of Amenities Rs. 1,50,000/-
4. Disfigurement and Loss of Marriage Rs. 1,00,000/-
prospects
5. Special Diet upto the date of Award ( Rs. Rs. 50,000/-
25,000/-) Conveyance upto the date of Award
6. Future Conveyance Rs. 50,000/-
7. Future Special Diet Rs. 50,000/-
8. Future Treatment (including Rs. 80,000/- for Rs. 1,50,000/-
one surgery as per the estimate given by Apollo Hospital
9. Medical Treatment upto the date of the Rs. 50,000/-
award
Total Rs. 10,93,137/-
24. As per the certificate, Ex.PW1/2, the date of birth of the petitioner in the first petition is 05/02/1991. The date of accident was 03/07/12. Accordingly, the petitioner was 21 years as on the date of accident.
25. In the present matter, the petitioner was stated to be auto mechanic and was stated to be earning Rs. 15,500/- per month but no income or profession proof filed or proved on record. In these circumstances, the income of the deceased can very well be assessed on the basis of the chart available in the Minimum Wages Act. He is a non- matriculate as it is apparent from Ex PW1/2. The date of accident was 03/07/2012 on Consolidated award bearing Suit no. 816/12 & 12/13 Page no.8/14 which the minimum wages for non- matriculate were Rs 7748/-.
26. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the petitioner was 21 years as on the date of accident for which the relevant multiplier 18 as mentioned in Sarla Verma Vs. DTC decided on 15.4.2009 in C.A. No. 3483/08. Therefore, the total annual loss of earning capacity comes out to be to Rs. 11,71,497. 6 p. rounded off to Rs. 11,71,498/- ( Rs. 7748/- x 12 x 18x 70/100).
COMPENSATION ON ACCOUNT OF ARTIFICIAL LIMB:
27. The petitioner will also require an artificial limb. The petitioner has filed the certificate Ex PW1/5 showing that a sum of Rs. 1,57,000/- will be required to spend on artificial implant. Ld. Counsel for the insurance company objected to the same during arguments and stated that there shall be no need of artificial implant, and even if needed, the estimated amount is on higher side. Keeping in view the nature of amputation, it appears to me a sum of Rs. 1 Lack would be suffice for purchase of artificial limb. Therefore, I hereby grant Rs. 1 Lakhs as compensation towards artificial limb. In view of the aforesaid discussion, case laws and the circumstances of the case, I award him the compensation as tabulated hereunder:-
Sr. Compensation under various heads Awarded by this No. Court
1. Loss of Earning Capacity (Rs. 7748/- x12x Rs. 11,71,498/-
18x 70/ 100)
2. Pain and suffering Rs. 50,000/-
3. Loss of Amenities Rs. 25,000/-
4. Disfigurement and Loss of Marriage Rs. 50,000/-
prospects
5. Special Diet and Conveyance Rs. 25,000/-
6. Future Conveyance Rs. 25,000/-
7. Compensation towards medical bills. Rs. 37,097/-
8. Artificial Implant Rs. 1,00,000/-
Total Rs.14,83,595/- Consolidated award bearing Suit no. 816/12 & 12/13 Page no.9/14 RELIEF:
28. I award Rs. 14,83,595/- (Rupees Fourteen Lakhs Eighty Three Thousand Five Hundred Ninety Five Only) as compensation with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum including interim award, if any from the date of filing the petition i.e., 16/11/2012 (DAR) till the notice under Order 21 Rule 1 is given by the insurance company, in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents on account of their liability being joint and several.
29. Acting on the guidelines issued by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India G.M Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v/s S.Susamma Thomas (1994) 2 SCC 176 in order to avoid the money being frittered away, fifty percent(50%) of the amount awarded to petitioner shall be kept in 5 FDRs of almost equal amount for a period of 1,2,3,4 & 5 years. No loan or advance shall be allowed against the said fixed deposit.
Petitioner can withdraw the interest quarterly from the said FDRs. COMPENSATON IN SECOND PETITION(Suit No.12/13) NATURE OF INJURIES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF MEDICAL BILLS:
30. The medical record of the petitioner in the second petition suggests that he had got degloving injury. The petitioner has filed the medical bills to the tune of Rs. 18,470/-
Therefore, I hereby award a sum of Rs. 18,470/- towards medical bills keeping in view the nature of injuries and medical bills placed on record.
PAIN AND SUFFERINGS
31. Keeping in view the nature of injuries, I hereby allow Rs. 25,000/- towards pain and sufferings and loss of amenities of life. Besides this, I hereby award a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards special diet and conveyance.
LOSS OF INCOME DURING TREATMENT PERIOD :
32. In the present matter, the petitioner in second petition was stated to be painter and was stated to be earning Rs. 450/- per day, but no income proof filed or proved on record. The petitioner is non-matriculate as per certificate, Ex. PW2/3. In these circumstances, the income of the deceased can very well be assessed on the basis of the chart available in the Minimum Wages Act. The date of accident was 03/07/2012 on which the minimum wages for non-matriculate were Rs.7748/-. The medical record & over Consolidated award bearing Suit no. 816/12 & 12/13 Page no.10/14 all circumstances suggest that he could not have worked for 3 months . Therefore, I hereby grant Rs. 23,244/ ( Rs. 7748/- x 3)towards loss of income during the t reatment period The total compensation is assessed as under:-
Treatment expenses: Rs. 18,470/-
Pain and sufferings: Rs. 25,000/-
Special diet and
conveyance : Rs. 5,000/-
Loss of income : Rs. 23,244/
_____ ___________
Total: Rs. 71,714/-
RELIEF:
33. I award Rs. 71,714/- (Rupees Seventy One Thousand Seven Hundred Fourteen Only) as compensation with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum including interim award, if any from the date of filing the petition i.e. 16/11/12(DAR) till the notice under Order 21 Rule 1 is given by the insurance company, in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents on account of their liability being joint and several. APPORTIONMENT OF LIABILITY:
34. The respondent No: 3 being the insurer, its liability is joint and several with other respondents. Accordingly, the respondent N o.3 is directed to deposit the award amount within a period of 30 days. In case of any delay, it shall be liable to pay interest at a rate of 12% per annum for the period of delay.
35. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in its latest judgment in Union of India and Another Vs. Nanisari and Others MACA 682/2005 decided on 13.1.2010 have given certain guidelines and directions to the Motor Accident Tribunals to the effect that henceforth the Tribunals shall direct the insurance companies to deposit the award amount in the bank within 30 days with further direction as to the disbursement of the same in terms of the award and case be kept pending till the compliance is placed on record. The directions given by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi as mentioned and endorsed in the said order has already been re affirmed by Hon;ble Supreme Court of India in Consolidated award bearing Suit no. 816/12 & 12/13 Page no.11/14 order dated 17.12.2009 in SLP (C) No. 11801-11804/2005 which contains certain schemes initiated for the benefit of the victims of the road accidents after the award amount is passed. The para no.18 of the judgment of the Hon'ble High court of Delhi runs as under:-
"19. To protect and preserve the compensation amount awarded to the families of the deceased victim special schemes may be considered by the insurance companies in consultation with the Life Insurance Corporation of India, State Bank of India or any other Nationalized Banks under which the compensation is kept in fixed deposit for an appropriate period and interest is paid by the Bank monthly to the claimants without any need for claimants having to approach either the Court or their counsel or the Bank for that purpose. The scheme should ensure that the amount of compensation is utilized only for the benefit of the injured claimants or in case of death, for the benefit of the dependent family. We extract below the particulars of a special Scheme offered by a nationalized Bank at the instance of the Delhi High Court:
(i) The fixed deposit shall be automatically renewed till the period prescribed by the Court.
(ii) The interest on the fixed deposit shall be paid monthly.
(iii) The monthly interest shall be credited automatically in the saving account of the claimant.
(iv) Original fixed deposit receipt shall be retained by the Bank in safe custody. However, the original pass book shall be given to the claimant along with the photocopy of the FDR.
(v) The original fixed deposit receipt shall be handed over to the claimant at the end of the fixed deposit period.
(vi) Photo identity card shall be issued to the claimant and the withdrawal shall be permitted only after due verification by the Bank of the identity card of the claimant.
(vii) No cheque book shall be issued to the claimant without permission of the Court.
(viii) No loan, advance or withdrawal shall be allowed on the fixed deposit without
Consolidated award bearing
Suit no. 816/12 & 12/13 Page no.12/14
permission of the Court.
(ix) The claimant can operated the saving bank account from the nearest branch of UCO Bank on the request of the claimant, the bank shall provide the said facility."
36. It was further held in the judgment passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Nanisiri case (Supra) that "The State Bank of India and UCO Bank have formulated special schemes for the victims of the road accident on the above terms and, therefore, the order for the deposit should be made presently to State Bank of India through its nodal officer Mr. K.K. Malhotra, Relationship Manager, Tis Hazari Branch, Tis Hazari (Mb: 09810433676) or to UCO Bank through Mr. M M Tandon, Member-Retail Team, UCO Bank Zonal, Parliament Street, New Delhi (Mobile No.09310356400) as per the convenience of the victim /legal representatives of the victim. However, if any other bank agrees to provide the special scheme for victims of the road accident on the above terms, the deposit be permitted to be made in that Bank subject to the convenience of the victim/legal representative of the victim of the road accident".
37. In terms of the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi the insurance company shall deposit the award amount in the State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Court Complex Branch, Delhi in the name of the petitioner/ petitioners in terms of the award and shall file the compliance report. It is made clear that at the time of the deposit of the award amount with the bank, the insurance company shall specifically mention the suit no. of the case, title of the case as well as date of decision with the name of court on the back side of the cheque. The insurance company shall also file the attested copy of the award attested by its own officer to the bank at the time of deposit of the amount with the bank.
38. The copy of this award be given to the insurance company as well as to the petitioner free of cost. The petitioner shall approach the State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Court Complex Branch, Delhi for opening the account.
39. The Manager of the Bank is directed to comply the award. The Bank Manager is directed to release the award amount to the petitioners. However, in case the amount is ordered to be kept in the FDR, the said amount should not be released unless the FDR Consolidated award bearing Suit no. 816/12 & 12/13 Page no.13/14 is matured.
File be consigned to Record Room.
A separate file be prepared for compliance report and put up the same on 05/09/2013 ,to be fixed by insurance company.
Announced in the open court
On 5th of July, 2013. (SANJAY KUMAR AGGARWAL)
JUDGE: MACT (WEST):DELHI
Consolidated award bearing
Suit no. 816/12 & 12/13 Page no.14/14
Suit No. 816/12 (copy also in Suit no. 12/13)
22/05/2013
Present: None
Orders not ready as Sr. Stenographer is on leave today.
Put up for orders on 05/07/2013.
(SANJAY KUMAR AGGARWAL)
PO: MACT(West) : DELHI
Suit No. 816/12 (copy also in Suit no. 12/13)
05/07/2013
Present: None.
Consolidated Judgment in Suits No. 816/12 & 12/13 announced vide separate sheets of even date.
File be consigned to Record Room.
A separate file be prepared for compliance report and put up the same son 05/09/2013 to be fixed by insurance company.
(SANJAY KUMAR AGGARWAL)
PO: MACT(West) : DELHI
Consolidated award bearing
Suit no. 816/12 & 12/13 Page no.15/14