Delhi District Court
Smt.Aarti vs Jasbir Singh on 14 February, 2011
IN THE COURT OF MS. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA :
JUDGE : MACT : CENTRAL DISTRICT : DELHI.
Suit No. 168/10
Unique ID No.02401C0161182010
1. Smt.Aarti,
W/o.Shri Satpal,
2. Sh.Satpal,
S/o Ishwer Lal,
Both Now R/o
L165, Plot No.15,
Gali No.5, New Raja Puri,
Uttam Nagar, New Delhi59
Earlier R/o
K2, Chankaya Place, Part2,
New Delhi110 058 .......Petitioner
Versus
1. Jasbir Singh,
S/o.Shri Tej Singh,
Suit No.168/10 & 169/10 Page 1/23
R/o Takha, PS Udyog Nagar, Bharatpur,
Rajasthan .......(Driver)
2. Rajasthan Road Transport Corporation
Through its Manager (Operation)
(Delhi Depot) at ISBT, Kashmiri Gate,
New Delhi .......(Owner)
......... Respondents.
Date of Institution of the suit : 12.04.2010
Date on which order was reserved : 14.02.2011
Date of Decision : 14.02.2011
Suit No. 169/10
Unique ID No.02401C0161092010
1. Sh.Satpal,
S/o Ishwer Lal,
2. Smt.Aarti,
W/o.Shri Satpal,
Both Now R/o
L165, Plot No.15,
Gali No.5, New Raja Puri,
Suit No.168/10 & 169/10 Page 2/23
Uttam Nagar, New Delhi59
Earlier R/o
K2, Chankaya Place, Part2,
New Delhi110 058 .......Petitioner
Versus
1. Jasbir Singh,
S/o.Shri Tej Singh,
R/o Takha, PS Udyog Nagar, Bharatpur,
Rajasthan .......(Driver)
3. Rajasthan Road Transport Corporation
Through its Manager (Operation)
(Delhi Depot) at ISBT, Kashmiri Gate,
New Delhi .......(Owner)
......... Respondents.
Date of Institution of the suit : 12.04.2010
Date on which order was reserved : 14.02.2011
Date of Decision : 14.02.2011
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment I shall dispose of two claim petitions bearing nos. 168/10, 169/10 as they have arisen out of the same accident bearing Suit No.168/10 & 169/10 Page 3/23 FIR No.89/2010, P.S. Sadar Palwal, District Palwal, Haryana u/s.279/337/304A IPC.
2. The present claim petitions have been filed by the petitioners u/s 166 and 140 of Motor Vehicle Act.
3. Brief facts giving rise to the present claim petitions are that on 05/03/2010 at about 10:00 am Nikhil (deceased in claim petition no.169/10) was going to Mathura in his motorcycle alongwith his sister Monika (deceased in claim petition no.168/10) as pillion rider on National Highway2. When they had reached in the area of Village Bamni Khera, a bus bearing registration no. RJ14 IP 4740 was being driven by Respondent no.1 at high speed in rash and negligent manner had hit the motorcycle of the deceased from the front side. As a result thereof, both of the deceased had fallen down on the road and had sustained fatal injuries.
4. Written Statement was filed by ld.counsel for respondents no. 2, wherein it is stated that the petitioners have not come to the court with clean hands. It is denied that accident had taken place due to negligence of respondent no.1.
5. Both the claim petitions bearing Suit nos. 168/10, 169/10 Suit No.168/10 & 169/10 Page 4/23 were ordered to be consolidated vide an order dated 22/07/2010 and Suit no. 168/10 was ordered to be treated as lead case.
6. Out of the pleadings of the parties, the issues were settled as under in both the claim petitions:
1. Whether the deceased Nikhil/Monika had died due of the injuries sustained by them in an accident which took place on 05.03.2010 because of rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing registration no.RJ14IP4740 by respondent no.1?
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
3. Relief.
7. Respondent no.1 was proceeded exparte vide order dated 22.07.2010.
8. Petitioners have examined three witnesses in support of their claim.
9. PW1 Smt. Aarti (petitioner no.1 in claim petition bearing no.168/10 and mother of the deceased Nikhil & Monika has tendered Suit No.168/10 & 169/10 Page 5/23 in evidence her examinationinchief by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A wherein she stated that the deceased was her daughter. She has died in an accident on 05/03/2010 within the jurisdiction of PS Sadar Palwal, Haryana due to negligent driving of driver of bus bearing registration no.RJ14 IP 4740.
She further stated that her daughter was 22 years of age at the time of accident and was working as Beautician with Beauty Parlor in the Mall on Ring Road and was earning Rs.15,000/ per month.
She has also proved on record certified copies of criminal case record as Ex.PW1/2, copy of rent agreement as Ex.PW1/3, copy of Ration Card as Ex.PW1/4, copy of PAN card of deceased as Ex.PW1/5, copy of PAN card of herself as Ex.PW1/6, copy of telephone bill of MTNL as Mark 'A', certificate issued by VLCC Institute to the deceased as Ex.PW1/7 & Ex.PW1/8, Marksheet of the deceased of 6th standard as Ex.PW1/9, report card of the deceased of 2nd standard as Ex.PW1/10, Training certificate issued by VLCC Institute as Ex.PW1/11, Salary certificate of the deceased as Ex.PW1/12, salary record of deceased and the attendance chart of the deceased from the employer and salary vouchers as Ex.PW1/13, Progress report for 1st standard as Ex.PW1/14, progress report of nursery as Ex.PW1/15, certificate from Computer Training Centre as Ex.PW1/16.
Suit No.168/10 & 169/10 Page 6/23 On being cross examined by Sh.Sanjay Kumar, Counsel for respondent no.2, she stated that she is not an eyewitness to the accident. She stated that she does not remember the name of Beauty Parlor in which the deceased was working at the time of accident. She further stated that she does not have any documentary proof regarding the income & employment of the deceased.
10. PW2 Sh. Satpal (Petitioner no.1 in claim petition bearing no.169/10) has tendered in evidence his examinationinchief by way of affidavit Ex.PW2/A wherein he has stated that the deceased was his son. He has died in an accident on 05/03/2010 within the jurisdiction of PS Sadar Palwal, Haryana due to involvement of bus bearing registration no.RJ14 IP 4740.5.30 pm, He stated that his son was 18 years of age at the time of accident. He further stated that his son was doing private service and was earning a sum of Rs.4,500/per month.
On being cross examined by Sh.Sanjay Kumar, Counsel for respondent no.2, he stated that he is not an eyewitness to the accident. He does not have any documentary proof regarding income or employment of the deceased. He denied the suggestion that the deceased was not working anywhere and was not earning anything.
Suit No.168/10 & 169/10 Page 7/23
11. PW3 Sh.Rakesh Kumar, who is eyewitness to the accident has tendered in evidence his examinationinchief by way of affidavit Ex.PW3/A wherein he has stated that the deceased Nikhil and Monika were his brotherin law and Sisterin law. On 05.03.2010 they had started their journey from Delhi to Mathura by driving their separate motorcycles. One motorcycle was driven by him alongwith his wife Anita as pillion rider and the other motorcycle was driven by his brother inlaw Nikhil alongwith his sister Monika as pillion rider. At about 10:00 am while they were going to Mathura and had reached in the area of Village Bamni Khera, a bus bearing registration no. RJ14 IP 4740 being driven by Respondent no.1 at high speed in rash and negligent manner had hit the motorcycle of the deceased from the front side. As a result thereof, both of the deceaseds had fallen down on the road and had sustained fatal injuries. His sisterinlaw Monika had died in the Government Hospital and his brotherinlaw Nikhil had died at the spot.
He further stated that police had recorded his statement and FIR no. 89/2010 dated 05.03.2010 U/s 279/337/304A IPC was registered at PS Sadar Palwal, District Palwal, Haryana.
He has also proved his driving licence as Ex.PW3/1 On being cross examined by Sh.Vipin Kumar, counsel for respondent no.2 he stated that he is working as Supervisor in Suit No.168/10 & 169/10 Page 8/23 Enforcement Department in Meru Cab Company, Dwarka, Sector11. He was on leave on 05.03.2010. He denied the suggestion that the accident had not taken place due to negligence of driver of offending vehicle.
12. Thereafter, petitioner's evidence was closed.
Respondents examined one witness in support of their case.
13. RW1 Sh.Jasbir Singh has tendered in evidence his examination inchief by way of affidavit as Ex.RW1/A, wherein he denied that the accident had taken place due to his own negligence. He stated that on the date of accident when he reached near village Bamni Khera, he had found that the road towards Bhartpur to Delhi was closed due to some repairing work and traffic was diverted on the road of Delhi to Bharatpur, therefore, he has no option but to follow the diverted route. He stated that two motorbikes came from Delhi side at high speed driving in rash and negligent manner and had tried to overtake the car which was going ahead of the motorbikes. One of the motorbikes had hit against the car from one side and had fallen down on the road. He stated that he had immediately applied brakes of bus and turned the same towards central verge. He alongwith other passengers of the bus deboarded from the bus for helping the motorcyclist. However, police had wrongly implicated him in criminal case.
On being crossexamined by Sh.R.P.Singh, Proxy counsel for Suit No.168/10 & 169/10 Page 9/23 petitioner he admitted that an FIR was registered against him qua the present accident and he was released on bail in this case. He admitted that he has not filed any complaint to any of the higher authorities of police that he has been falsely implicated in the present accident. He denied that the accident had taken place due to his own negligence.
14. Thereafter, respondents evidence was closed.
15. Final arguments were heard on behalf of Ld. Counsel for petitioners as well as for the respondents. After hearing arguments and having gone through the record, I record my findings on issues settled as follows: ISSUE NO.1 IN BOTH THE CLAIM PETITIONS:
16. Whether the deceased Nikhil/Monika had died due of the injuries sustained by them in an accident which took place on 05.03.2010 because of rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing registration no.RJ14IP4740 by respondent no.1?
The petitioners have filed on record certified copies of challan which are Ex.P1. The same clearly shows that the accident in this case has taken place due to rash & negligent driving of the driver of offending vehicle bearing registration no. RJ14IP4740.
The postmortem report, on the other hand also reflects that the injuries are of the nature which could have been caused due to injuries Suit No.168/10 & 169/10 Page 10/23 sustained in road traffic accident.
PW3 Sh.Rakesh Kumar, the only eyewitness of the case has also stated that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle bearing registration no. RJ14IP 4740.
The petitioners have also stated on oath that the accident in this case has taken place due to rash & negligent driving of the driver of offending vehicle bearing registration no.RJ14IP4740 as has been discussed above in the testimony of PW1 as well as eyewitness.
Therefore, the testimony of PW1, PW2 and PW3 considered alongwith the other documents i.e. certified copy of the challan, postmortem report, I am of the opinion that deceased Nikhil & Monkia had received fatal injuries in road traffic accident due to rash & negligent driving of the driver of offending vehicle bearing registration no. RJ14 IP4740.
It is, therefore, prima facie clear that the accident in the case had taken place due to rash & negligent driving of the driver of offending vehicle bearing registration no. RJ14IP4740 causing death of the deceased persons.
Hence, issue no.1 is decided against the respondents. ISSUE NO.2 IN BOTH CLAIM PETITIONS:
17.
Suit No.168/10 & 169/10 Page 11/23 Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
Onus to prove this issue was also on the petitioners. Since it has been clearly mentioned in the testimonies of the PWs that they are the only legal heirs of the deceased. No contrary evidence has been led by respondents to rebut the claim of petitioners. Therefore, testimonies of petitioners have remained unrebutted and uncontroverted.
Since, issue no.1 has been decided in favour of the petitioners that the deceased had died due to the injuries sustained by them in the accident with the offending vehicle, petitioners are entitled to compensation under the Motor Vehicle Act.
Coming
18. to Compensation regarding the Suit No. 168/10 wherein deceased Monika had died.
LOSS OF FINANCIAL DEPENDENCY
27. Petitioner no.1, who is mother of the deceased, has stated that her daughter was working as beautician with Beauty Parlor in the Mall on Ring Road and was earning Rs.15,000/ per month. She has filed on record salary certificate of the deceased as Ex.PW1/12, salary record of deceased and the attendance chart of the deceased from the employer and salary vouchers as Ex.PW1/13. However, she has not produce the Suit No.168/10 & 169/10 Page 12/23 employer to prove the same. She has filed on record certificate of 12th standard of deceased. Therefore, I am inclined to take minimum wages of matriculate to assess financial dependency.
28. It is settled in the case of Kanwar Devi Vs.Bansal Roadways, 2008 ACJ 2182, National Insurance Company Limited vs. Renu Devi III (2008) ACC 134 and UPSRTC vs. Munni Devi, MAC. APP.No.310/2007 decided on 28/07/2008 that the Court should take judicial notice of increase in minimum wages to meet the increase in price index and inflation rate. The Court has taken the view that the minimum wages get doubled over the period of 10 years and increase in minimum wages is not akin to future prospects and the income should be computed by taking the average of minimum wages and its double.
On the date of accident i.e. 05.03.2010 the minimum wages of matriculate was Rs.6,448/(round figure Rs.6,450/) per month.
Following the aforesaid judgment, the monthly income of the deceased will be Rs.6,450/ plus Rs.12,900/ divided by 1/2 which comes to Rs.9,675/.
In the recent judgment of "Smt. Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, CA 3483 of 2008, SC, it has been categorically laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that in the case of the death of a bachelor, unless there is evidence to the contrary, the father Suit No.168/10 & 169/10 Page 13/23 is likely to have his own income and will not be considered as a dependent and the mother alone will be considered as a dependent. It has been further laid down that in such case 50% will be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. It is also laid down in this judgment that normally 50% is deducted towards personal and living expenses in case of a bachelor since it is assumed that a bachelor tends to spend more on himself, even otherwise there is also possibility of him getting married in short time in which case the contribution to the parents and siblings is likely to be cut drastically.
34. Therefore, annual contribution of the deceased towards his family was 50% of Rs.9,675/ which comes to Rs.4837.5/ (in round figures Rs.4,840/).
Petitioners are the parents of the deceased. In the judgment of New India Assurance Company Ltd vs Shanti Pathak reported as III (2007) ACC 505 (SC) it has been held that multiplier to be adopted is to be determined on the basis of age of claimant and not age of deceased. Mother of the deceased is 52 years old as per PAN Card Ex.PW1/6, hence multiplier of 11 as per the Judgment of Smt. Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, CA 3483 of 2008, SC is to be applied.
Therefore, total loss of financial dependency accordingly will be Rs.4,840/ x12x11 which comes to Rs.6,38,880/. Therefore, the total Suit No.168/10 & 169/10 Page 14/23 loss of dependency will be Rs.6,38,880/.
LOSS OF LOVE AND AFFECTION.
29. No amount of compensation can compensate the loss of a daughter to her parents. No amount of money can wipe the tears, the trauma of the petitioners and the feeling that the petitioners must be feeling each day having lost their daughter. The Trauma is for the lifetime. Therefore, I am inclined to grant a sum of Rs.10,000/ to the petitioners for loss of love and affection.
FUNERAL EXPENSES.
30. Rs.5,000/ is awarded to the petitioners on account of funeral expenses.
LOSS TO ESTATE.
31. I award Rs.10,000/ on account of loss to estate to petitioners. RELIEF.
32. In view of my finding on issue no.1 and 2, the petitioners are awarded following compensation: Loss of financial dependency Rs.6,38,880/ Loss of love and affection Rs.10,000/ Funeral Expenses Rs.5,000/ Loss to Estate Rs.10,000/ Total Rs.6,63,880/ Suit No.168/10 & 169/10 Page 15/23
33. Petitioners are therefore entitled to compensation of Rs.6,63,880/. Petitioners are also entitled to interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of petition i.e. 12.04.2010 till its realization.
Out of the said compensation, petitioner no.1/Smt. Aarti being mother of the deceased is entitled to a sum of Rs.3,31,940/ with 7.5% interest as stated above. Out of this amount, a sum of Rs.50,000/ be given in cash to petitioner no.1 and out of the remaining amount of Rs.2,81,940/, Rs.81,940/ be deposited in the form of FDR with any nationalized bank for the period of one year, Rs.50,000/ be deposited in the form of FDR with any nationalized bank for the period of two years, Rs.50,000/ be deposited in the form of FDR with any nationalized bank for the period of three years, Rs.50,000/ be deposited in the form of FDR with any nationalized bank for the period of four years & Rs.50,000/ be deposited in the form of FDR with any nationalized bank for the period of five years without the facility of advance/ loan or withdrawal. However, petitioner no.1 will be entitled to monthly or quarterly interest as applicable.
Petitioner no.2/Sh.Satpal being father of the deceased is entitled to a sum of Rs.3,31,940/ with 7.5% interest as stated above. Out of this Suit No.168/10 & 169/10 Page 16/23 amount, a sum of Rs.50,000/ be given in cash to petitioner no.1 and out of the remaining amount of Rs.2,81,940/, Rs.81,940/ be deposited in the form of FDR with any nationalized bank for the period of one year, Rs.50,000/ be deposited in the form of FDR with any nationalized bank for the period of two years, Rs.50,000/ be deposited in the form of FDR with any nationalized bank for the period of three years, Rs.50,000/ be deposited in the form of FDR with any nationalized bank for the period of four years & Rs.50,000/ be deposited in the form of FDR with any nationalized bank for the period of five years without the facility of advance/ loan or withdrawal. However, petitioner no.2 will be entitled to monthly or quarterly interest as applicable.
43. Respondent no.1 being driver, respondent no. 2 being owner of the offending vehicle are jointly and severely liable to make the payment of compensation to petitioners.
Respondents No.1 & 2 are directed to deposit the award amount with the Nazir of the Court within 30 days. Driver/owner are also directed to place on record the proof of deposit of the award amount, the notice of the deposit to the claimants and the calculation of interest in the Court within 30 days from today.
The petitioners will file two sets of photographs alongwith their specimen signatures. The same shall be retained in the Court for future Suit No.168/10 & 169/10 Page 17/23 reference. The photographs be got stamped and be sent to the Court as and when ordered. The proof of residence and details of the bank account be also provided by the petitioners within seven days to the Nazir. Coming
35. to Compensation regarding the Suit No. 169/10 wherein Nikhil had died.
LOSS OF FINANCIAL DEPENDENCY
36. Petitioner no.1, who is father of the deceased, has stated in his affidavit that his son was 18 years of age at the time of accident and was doing private job and was earning Rs.4,500/per month. However, he admitted that he has not filed any documents regarding the income and employment of the deceased. Therefore, I am inclined to take minimum wages of unskilled labourer to asses loss of financial dependency.
It is settled in the case of Kanwar Devi Vs.Bansal Roadways, 2008 ACJ 2182, National Insurance Company Limited vs. Renu Devi III (2008) ACC 134 and UPSRTC vs. Munni Devi, MAC. APP.No.310/2007 decided on 28/07/2008 that the Court should take judicial notice of increase in minimum wages to meet the increase in price index and inflation rate. The Court has taken the view that the minimum wages get doubled over the period of 10 years and increase in minimum wages is not akin to future prospects and the income should be computed by taking Suit No.168/10 & 169/10 Page 18/23 the average of minimum wages and its double.
At the time of death of deceased i.e.05.03.2010, minimum wages of unskilled labourer were Rs.5,278/(Round figure Rs.5,280/ per month).
Following the aforesaid judgment, the monthly income of the deceased will be Rs.5,280/ plus Rs.10,560/ divided by 1/2 which comes to Rs.7,920/. Therefore, the monthly income of the deceased is Rs.7,920/per month.
In the recent judgment of "Smt. Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, CA 3483 of 2008, SC, it has been categorically laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that in the case of the death of a bachelor, unless there is evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have his own income and will not be considered as a dependent and the mother alone will be considered as a dependent. It has been further laid down that in such case 50% will be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. It is also laid down in this judgment that normally 50% is deducted towards personal and living expenses in case of a bachelor since it is assumed that a bachelor tends to spend more on himself, even otherwise there is also possibility of him getting married in short time in which case the contribution to the parents and siblings is likely to be cut drastically.
Suit No.168/10 & 169/10 Page 19/23 Therefore, annual contribution of the deceased towards his family was 50% of Rs.7,920/ which comes to Rs.3,960/.
Petitioners are the parents of the deceased. In the judgment of New India Assurance Company Ltd vs Shanti Pathak reported as III (2007) ACC 505 (SC) it has been held that multiplier to be adopted is to be determined on the basis of age of claimant and not age of deceased. Mother of the deceased is 52 years old as per PAN Card Ex.PW1/6, hence multiplier of 11 as per the Judgment of Smt. Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, CA 3483 of 2008, SC is to be applied.
Therefore, total loss of financial dependency accordingly will be Rs.3,960/ x12x11 which comes to Rs.5,22,720/. Therefore, the total loss of dependency will be Rs.5,22,720/.
LOSS OF LOVE AND AFFECTION.
37. No amount of compensation can compensate the loss of son to his parents. No amount of money can wipe the tears, the trauma of the petitioners and the feeling that the petitioners must be feeling each day having lost their son. The Trauma is for the lifetime. Therefore, I am inclined to grant a sum of Rs.10,000/ to the petitioners for loss of love and affection.
FUNERAL EXPENSES.
38. Rs.5,000/ is awarded to the petitioners on account of funeral Suit No.168/10 & 169/10 Page 20/23 expenses.
LOSS TO ESTATE.
39. I award Rs.5,000/ on account of loss to estate to petitioners. RELIEF.
40.
41. In view of my finding on issue no.1 and 2, the petitioners are awarded following compensation: Loss of financial dependency Rs.5,22,720/ Loss of love and affection Rs.10,000/ Funeral Expenses Rs.5,000/ Loss to Estate Rs.5,000/ Total Rs.5,42,720/
42. Petitioners are therefore entitled to compensation of Rs.5,42,720/. Petitioners are also entitled to interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of petition i.e. 12.04.2010 till its realization.
Out of the said compensation, petitioner no.1/Sh. Satpal being father of the deceased is entitled to a sum of Rs.2,71,360/ with 7.5% interest as stated above. Out of this amount, a sum of Rs.50,000/ be given in cash to petitioner no.1 and out of the remaining amount of Rs.2,21,360/, Rs.50,000/ be deposited in the form of FDR with any nationalized bank for the period of one year, Rs.50,000/ be deposited in Suit No.168/10 & 169/10 Page 21/23 the form of FDR with any nationalized bank for the period of two years, Rs.50,000/ be deposited in the form of FDR with any nationalized bank for the period of three years, Rs.71,360/ be deposited in the form of FDR with any nationalized bank for the period of four years without the facility of advance/ loan or withdrawal. However, petitioner no.1 will be entitled to monthly or quarterly interest as applicable.
Petitioner no.2/Smt. Aarti being mother of the deceased is entitled to a sum of Rs.2,71,360/ with 7.5% interest as stated above. Out of this amount, a sum of Rs.50,000/ be given in cash to petitioner no.1 and out of the remaining amount of Rs.2,21,360/, Rs.50,000/ be deposited in the form of FDR with any nationalized bank for the period of one year, Rs.50,000/ be deposited in the form of FDR with any nationalized bank for the period of two years, Rs.50,000/ be deposited in the form of FDR with any nationalized bank for the period of three years, Rs.71,360/ be deposited in the form of FDR with any nationalized bank for the period of four years without the facility of advance/ loan or withdrawal. However, petitioner no.1 will be entitled to monthly or quarterly interest as applicable.
43. Respondent no.1 being driver, respondent no. 2 being owner of the offending vehicle are jointly and severely liable to make the payment of compensation to petitioners.
Suit No.168/10 & 169/10 Page 22/23 Respondents No.1 & 2 are directed to deposit the award amount with the Nazir of the Court within 30 days. Driver/owner are also directed to place on record the proof of deposit of the award amount, the notice of the deposit to the claimants and the calculation of interest in the Court within 30 days from today.
The petitioners will file two sets of photographs alongwith their specimen signatures. The same shall be retained in the Court for future reference. The photographs be got stamped and be sent to the Court as and when ordered. The proof of residence and details of the bank account be also provided by the petitioners within seven days to the Nazir.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in open court (SWARANA K.SHARMA)
on 14.02.2010 JUDGE:MACT: CENTRAL DISTT. :
DELHI
Attested copy prepared by the Reader
and given to the Ahlmad today itself.
Suit No.168/10 & 169/10 Page 23/23