Delhi District Court
Gita Devi & Ors. vs . Hanuman & Ors. on 14 November, 2018
Gita Devi & Ors. vs. Hanuman & Ors.
IN THE COURT OF SH. SAMEER BAJPAI : PRESIDING OFFICER : MACT
SOUTH DISTRICT : SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI
Petition No. : 75279/16
1. Gita Devi
W/o late Radheyshyam Mandal ..... Mother
2. Abhishek Ranjan
S/o late Radheyshyam Mandal ..... Unmarried Brother
Both R/o 38A, Katwaria Sarai, Top Floor,
New Delhi - 110 016
Permanent Add. : 59, Village Guria,
AnchalBaunsi, Distt. Banka - 813104
.........Petitioners
Versus
1. Hanuman @ Hanuman Singh
S/o Sh. Punaaga Ram @ Punam Singh
R/o Vill. Satto, PS Ziziyali, Distt. Jaisalmer,
Rajasthan ... Driver
2. Damodar Singh @ Damodar Singh Chouhan
S/o Sh. Khet Singh
R/o Mianpura, Gandhi Chowk,
Jaisalmer, Rajasthan - 345 001 ... Owner
3. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
Through its Manager,
8th Floor, Kanchanjunga Building,
18, Barakhamba Road,
New Delhi ... Insurance company
.......Respondents
Date of Institution : 26.11.2014
Date of reserving of judgment/order : 14.11.2018
Date of pronouncement : 14.11.2018
Petition No. : 75279/16 Page No.1/16
Gita Devi & Ors. vs. Hanuman & Ors.
J U D G M E N T :
1.By this judgment I shall dispose of the claim petition filed by the
petitioners for the fatal injuries sustained by Archana Kumari in a road
accident on 30.03.2014 at 10.30 a.m. at Moolsagar - Jaisalmer Road,
within the jurisdiction of police station Kotwali, Jaisalmer, Rajasthan,
due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing no. RJ 15 UA 0751
by the respondent no.1, owned by respondent no.2 and insured with
respondent no.3.
2.In their joint written statement respondents no.1 and 2 stated that the
present petition has been filed on the basis of false, frivolous and
concocted averments and the respondent no.1 was not at all negligent
in causing the alleged accident. Further, he has been falsely
implicated and the false FIR has been lodged against him. They
further stated that the alleged offending vehicle bearing no. RJ 15 UA
0751 was insured with respondent no.3 and the respondent no.1 was
holding a valid driving license. They further stated that the alleged
accident was not occurred due to the fault of respondent no.1. They
further stated that the alleged offending vehicle was purchased by
respondent no.2 in the year 2010 for his personal use and the
respondent no.1 was employed as a driver to drive the aforesaid
vehicle. On 29.03.2014 a friend of respondent no. 2, had requested
him to provide his vehicle to the friends of his son, who were coming to
Jaisalmer for sight seeing of Sum desert and Jaisalmer area. On their
request, the respondent no.2 provided the aforesaid vehicle alongwith
driver i.e. respondent no.1 to the friends of his son without any
charges.
Petition No. : 75279/16 Page No.2/16
Gita Devi & Ors. vs. Hanuman & Ors.
3.In its written statement respondent no.3 stated that the alleged
offending vehicle has been falsely implicated in the present case. It
further stated that the driver of the alleged offending vehicle bearing
no. RJ 15 UA 0751 was not holding a valid and effective driving license
to drive the vehicle at the time of accident, thus, there is an intentional
breach of terms and conditions by the respondent no.2. It further
stated that the alleged offending vehicle was being driven without a
valid permit and fitness certificate. It however, admitted that the said
vehicle was insured with it vide policy no. TUI/11079453 for the period
from 30.06.2013 to 29.06.2014.
4.For just adjudication of the case following issues were framed vide
order dated 11.09.2015 :
1.Whether Archana Kumari succumbed to the injuries sustained
in road accident on 30.03.2014 at about 10.30 a.m. on
MoolsagarJaisalmer Road, P.S. Kotwali, Jaisalmer, Rajasthan
due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing no.
RJ 15 UA 0751 by respondent no.1, owned by respondent no.2
and insured with respondent no.3?
2.To what amount of compensation, petitioners are entitled and
from whom?
3.Relief.
5.Petitioners examined Ms. Anishya Madan, Industrial Liaison Officer, IIT
Delhi as PW1. She brought the record of Academic Excellence/Mark
Sheets etc. and letter of training and placement of deceased, exhibited
as Ex.PW1/1 and Ex.PW1/2 respectively. She further stated that letter
of offers could not be produced as it is directly sent by the companies
to the selected candidates.
Petition No. : 75279/16 Page No.3/16
Gita Devi & Ors. vs. Hanuman & Ors.
6.Petitioner no.2 examined himself as PW2. He tendered in evidence
his affidavit Ex.PW2/A and relied upon the documents Ex.PW2/1 to
Ex.PW2/5.
7.Sh. Jatin Kumar (Eyewitness) was examined as PW3. He tendered
in evidence his affidavit Ex.PW3/A. He relied upon the certified copy
of FIR Ex.PW2/3.
8.Respondent no.2 examined Sh. Nitin Kumar Sharma, Judicial
Assistant/Ahlmad in the court of Sh. Gorakh Nath Pandey, Ld. P.O.
MACT (NE), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. He placed on record the
copies of evidence of Sh. Dilip Chordia and statement of Shakti Kewat
deposing as R3W1 in MACT claim no. 57/14. He also placed on
record the statement of Damodar Singh and statement of Hanuman
Singh R2W2 alongwith its affidavit Ex.R2W1 (Colly.) (OSR) containing
13 pages.
9.Respondent no.3 examined Sh. Shakti Kewat, its Administrative
Officer as R3W1. He tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.R3W1/A
and relied upon the documents Ex.R3W1/1 to Ex.R3W1/4.
10.I have heard arguments and perused the record. My issuewise
findings are as under :
I S S U E No. 1
11.Needless to say that for making someone entitled U/s 166 of the Motor
Vehicle Act, negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle needs to
be proved and to prove the same the Tribunal need not go into the
Petition No. : 75279/16 Page No.4/16
Gita Devi & Ors. vs. Hanuman & Ors.
technicalities because strict rules of procedure and evidence are not
followed. Basically, in road accident cases, Tribunal has simply to
quantify the compensation which is just, rational and reasonable on the
basis of enquiry. It is an admitted legal position that the negligence on
part of the driver with respect to use of the vehicle needs to be
established and the same is to be established on the principle of
preponderance of probabilities as decided in New India Assurance
Co. Ltd. vs. Harsh Mishra & Ors. III (2015) ACC 435 Delhi.
PW3 Jatin Kumar (eyewitness) has stated that on 30.03.2014
he alongwith other fellow students/friends namely Archana (deceased
in the present case), Mayank, Diksha and Pallav etc. were travelling in
an Innova car bearing no. RJ 15UA 0751 for sightseeing of Jaisalmer,
Rajasthan. The offending vehicle was being driven by the respondent
no.1 Hanuman Singh. At about 10.30 a.m. when the said car reached
MoolsagarJaisalmer Road within the jurisdiction of police station
Kotwali, Jaisalmer, Rajasthan, due to high speed, frequent abrupt cuts
and turns, the respondent no.1 lost control over the vehicle, due to
which it turned turtle. All the occupants sustained injuries and Archana
Kumari died on the spot. They all were taken to hospital. He further
stated that his statement was recorded by the police on 30.03.2014 at
about 2.00 p.m. An FIR bearing no. 119/14 was recorded at the police
station Kotwali, Jaisalmer. He further stated that he and other fellow
students requested the respondent no.1 to drive safely and carefully
but he did not pay any heed. He further stated that the accident took
place solely due to rash and negligent driving of Innova car bearing no.
RJ 15 UA 0751 by the respondent no.1.
During crossexamination he stated that he was the eyewitness
of the accident. He further stated that at the time of accident, the
Petition No. : 75279/16 Page No.5/16
Gita Devi & Ors. vs. Hanuman & Ors.
speed of Innova car was around 100110 km/hr. It was a straight
bumpy road, stones were lying on both the sides of the road as entire
area is such. He further stated that the Innova car was provided to
them as a part of package of hotel. He further stated that the accident
took place while overtaking another vehicle. FIR was lodged by him as
he was the only conscious person after the accident.
In the present case the petitioners have filed on record certified
copy of criminal case. Perusal of site plan shows that after loosing
balance the offending car left the road and turned turtle and went upto
about 100 ft. This scene itself shows the rashness and high speed of
the car. Further, the eyewitness Jatin Kumar has specifically stated
due to high speed, frequent cuts and turns the respondent no.1 lost
control of the offending vehicle and the vehicle turned turtle. He
further stated that he himself and the other fellow students requested
the driver to drive the car safely and carefully but the driver maintained
the manner in which he was driving the car i.e. in high speed. This
witness further categorically stated that the accident occurred solely
due to rash and negligent driving by the respondent no.1. No other
version of accident has come on record except the one as narrated by
PW3. Nothing material came in the crossexamination of PW3 to dis
believe his version of accident. Therefore, the petitioners have
successfully established on record that Archana Kumari succumbed to
the injuries sustained in a road accident on 30.03.2014 at about 10.30
a.m. on MoolsagarJaisalmer Road, within the jurisdiction of police
station Kotwali, Jaisalmer, Rajasthan due to rash and negligent driving
of vehicle bearing no. RJ 15 UA 0751 by respondent no.1 which was
owned by respondent no.2 and insured with respondent no.3.
Petition No. : 75279/16 Page No.6/16
Gita Devi & Ors. vs. Hanuman & Ors.
Issue no.1 is accordingly, decided in favour of the petitioners
and against the respondents.
I S S U E No. 2
12.Admittedly, deceased Archana Kumari died because of the injuries
suffered by her in the accident which occurred due to the negligence of
respondent no.1. Hence, the LRs of deceased are entitled for
compensation for the financial loss suffered by them on account of the
death of Archana Kumari. The petitioners being the legal
representatives of the deceased, shall be entitled for the following
reliefs in view of the judgment in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs.
Pranay Sethi & Ors. decided in Special Leave Petition Civil no.
25590 of 2014 wherein the extent of the claim under different heads
was discussed in detail and it was held that following amounts shall be
considered as just and reasonable award under the following heads :
S. No. Particulars Amount (in Rs.)
1 Funeral Expenses 15,000/
2 Loss of Estate 15,000/
As far as the head of Loss of Dependency is concerned, same
is to be calculated as per the multiplier method which has been
adopted as a thumb rule in Sarla Verma's Case [2009 (6) Scale 129]
as affirmed in Reshma Kumari & Ors. vs. Madan Lal & Anr. (2013)
9 SCC 65 and various other judgments, unless there are exceptional
circumstances which make it necessary to depart from the said rule.
Further, in the judgment titled as National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs.
Pranay Sethi & Ors. (Supra) it has been concluded by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court that in determination of the multiplicand the deduction
Petition No. : 75279/16 Page No.7/16
Gita Devi & Ors. vs. Hanuman & Ors.
for personal and living expenses the Tribunals shall be guided by the
law as laid in Sarla Verma's case. Admittedly the deceased was a
bachelor, who left behind her mother and brother as her legal heirs.
As the deceased was bachelor, it is the age of deceased which is to be
taken for deciding the multiplier applicable. As per the Secondary
School Examination Certificate, the date of birth of the deceased was
12.01.1991, the accident took place on 30.03.2014, so, she was 23
years of age at the time of accident. Therefore, the applicable
multiplier would be '18'.
As far as the income of the deceased is concerned, PW2 has
stated that the deceased was student of dual degree course of B.Tech.
and M.Tech. Chemical Engineering at IIT Delhi. She was in the final
year and had appeared in the final examination. It is further stated that
the deceased was on the verge of making bright career when cruel
clutches of death snatched her. Since her childhood she was very
talented and outstanding in studies, games and cocurricular activities.
It is further stated that the deceased was selected from campus
interviews and had got placement even in her fourth year of the
course. Before completion of the course, the deceased was selected
as 'Graduate Engineering Trainee' by Reliance Industries Ltd. on a
package of Rs. 7,00,000/ p.a. plus Rs. 50,000/ as one time joining
bonus, which would have increased to Rs. 7,50,000/ p.a. from the 13 th
month onwards as Cost to Company. It is further stated that the
deceased was also provided promotion on completion of training
period with higher salary and perks. He has placed on record the copy
of letter dated 09.12.2013 Ex.PW2/5 in this regard. It is further stated
that with the passage of time and experience, income and status of the
deceased would have multiplied manifold.
Petition No. : 75279/16 Page No.8/16
Gita Devi & Ors. vs. Hanuman & Ors.
During crossexamination he stated that the deceased was her
younger sister. She was a student of IIT, Delhi.
PW1 Ms. Anishya Madan, Industrial Liaison Officer from IIT,
Delhi has brought the record of academic excellence/mark sheets etc.
of the deceased Archana Kumari and exhibited the same as
Ex.PW1/1. She also brought the letter of training and placement unit,
IIT Delhi of deceased exhibited as Ex.PW1/2. She further stated that
the offer letter could not be produced as it is directly sent by the
company to the selected candidates. She also placed on record the
list of selected candidates Ex.PW1/2.
Documents placed on record regarding educational and co
curricular activities of the deceased show that she was a brilliant
student. She was also an outstanding sports person. She was in her
final year of graduation from IIT, Delhi which is a premier educational
institute of India. She has also got a letter of offer from Reliance
Industries Limited which is a renowned corporate house in India, which
only hires the brightest students.
In the present case an affidavit Ex.PW4/A has been filed by
Sh. Shomendra N. Roy, Vice President of Reliance Industries Limited.
For calculating the income of the deceased relevant paras of the said
affidavit are reproduced as under :
"I have on 09th December, 2013 issued an Offer Letter to
Ms. Archana Kumari offering her a position of "Graduate
Engineering Trainee" to join Reliance Industries Limited at
the conclusion of her Engineering studies in 2014. The
said Offer Letter was initially for a period of one year with
a condition that on successful completion of the training
period, she will be confirmed as 'Manager'. Further, I say
Petition No. : 75279/16 Page No.9/16
Gita Devi & Ors. vs. Hanuman & Ors.
that the salary [in our parlance called as "Cost to
Company (CTC)] offered to Ms. Archana Kumari was Rs.
7.0 lacs per annum plus Rs. 50,000/ as one time joining
bonus.
I admit the correctness of the said Offer Letter
dated 09.12.2013 which was issued by Reliance
Industries Limited together with CTC details as annexed
to the said application filed by the petitioner. I say that
Ms. Archana Kumari did not join Reliance Industries
Limited."
13.The deceased was at the threshold of her career and she would march
ahead in future. In these circumstances, there would not be any
obstacle in the way of the deceased in attaining the highest position in
her life. The salary of good employees in multinational companies
increased manifolds. Therefore, the salary of the deceased can safely
be taken as Rs. 7.0 lacs p.a. Offer letter Ex.PW2/5 shows that after
completion of training of one year, the deceased would get a position
of 'Manager'. Having regard to all the circumstances, this is a fit case
for grant of future prospects. After adding future prospects @50%, the
total income of the deceased comes to Rs. 10,50,000/ (7,00,000 +
7,00,000 x 50/100). The deceased was a bachelor, therefore, as a
general rule one half of her income is liable to be deducted towards
personal and living expenses. After deduction, the income of the
deceased comes to Rs. 5,25,000/ p.a. Thus, the loss of dependency
comes to Rs. 94,50,000/ (Rs. 5,25,000 x 18). I therefore, award
Rs.94,50,000/ to the petitioners towards loss of dependency.
Petition No. : 75279/16 Page No.10/16
Gita Devi & Ors. vs. Hanuman & Ors.
14.Thus, the total compensation in favour of the petitioners is calculated
as under :
1) LOSS OF DEPENDENCY = Rs. 94,50,000/
2) FUNERAL EXPENSES = Rs. 15,000/
3) LOSS OF ESTATE = Rs. 15,000/
============
TOTAL = Rs. 94,80,000/
============
L I A B I L I T Y
15.As the offending vehicle was being driven by respondent no. 1, the primary liability to compensate the petitioners remain with the respondent no. 1. Since the offending vehicle was owned by respondent no.2, he becomes vicariously liable to compensate the petitioners. It is an admitted position on record that the vehicle was insured with respondent no.3, therefore, respondent no.3 is contractually liable to compensate the petitioners.
16.Ld. counsel for the respondent no.3 in order to exonerate the insurance company from its liability has contended that the respondent no.1 was driving the offending vehicle in violation to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. He has relied upon the testimony of R3W1.
17.R3W1 has stated that their counsel sent notice U/o 12 Rule 8 CPC to the owner/insured Ex.R3W1/1 to produce the permit of the offending vehicle and valid and effective driving license authorising respondent no.1 to drive the offending vehicle. He further stated that the respondent no.2 has failed to provide the copy of the permit authorising him to drive the offending vehicle for hire or reward as the Petition No. : 75279/16 Page No.11/16 Gita Devi & Ors. vs. Hanuman & Ors.
same was insured as private car. He further stated that the respondent no.1 was also not holding valid driving license to drive the offending vehicle.
He was not crossexamined despite giving opportunity.
18.Now, the question is whether the offending vehicle was being used for the commercial purpose or for private purpose at the time of accident.
19.The respondent no.3 insurance company vehemently contends that the vehicle was in use for commercial purpose and therefore, it issued a notice Ex.R3W1/1 to the owner of the vehicle for producing the effective permit of the vehicle and valid license of the driver Hanuman Singh. PW3 Jatin Kumar in his statement whispered that the offending vehicle Innova car was provided to the group as part of package of hotel. The insurance company was supposed to summon a witness from the hotel or the person who had arranged the trip of the deceased and her friends but no such witness has been called by it. Ld. counsel for the respondents no.1 and 2 however, placed on record certified copy of the testimony of some witnesses as examined in MACT (Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, which includes the testimony of Mr. Dilip Chordia, the partner of Ratnawali Camp, Jaisalmer, who might have arranged the tour of the deceased and her friends. The said record was duly proved by the respondent no.2, the owner of the vehicle by summoning the original record by the MACT (Pilot Court), Karkardooma Courts. This witness i.e. Mr. Dilip Chordia was examined by respondents no.1 and 2 i.e. driver and owner and surprisingly not by the insurance company. This witness nowhere stated that the offending vehicle was booked as part of the trip and Petition No. : 75279/16 Page No.12/16 Gita Devi & Ors. vs. Hanuman & Ors.
payment for the same was made by the deceased or her friends. This witness clearly denied that he arranged the offending vehicle for sight seeing by the deceased and injured persons.
Overall nothing material has come on record to prove that the offending vehicle was engaged for payment and was being used commercially.
Therefore, the contention of the insurance company that the offending vehicle was being driven in violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy has no merit. Thus, the insurance company cannot be absolved from the liability to pay the award amount and cannot be given recovery rights against the respondents no.1 and 2.
R E L I E F
20.In view of my findings on issues, I award a sum of Rs. 94,80,000/ (Rs. Ninety Four Lakh Eighty Thousand only) to the petitioners i.e. legal heirs of deceased as compensation alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the petition till realization of the amount within a period of 30 days failing which the respondent no.3 shall be liable to pay future interest @ 12% per annum till realization (for the delayed period).
: RELEASE OF THE AWARDED AMOUNT : In the share of Petitioner no.1 (Mother of the deceased)
21.A sum of Rs. 92,80,000/ alongwith the proportionate interest thereon, is awarded to the petitioner no.1 being mother of the deceased.
Out of the awarded amount an amount of Rs. 90,00,000/ is directed to be kept in the form of fixed deposit in the following phased manner :
Petition No. : 75279/16 Page No.13/16Gita Devi & Ors. vs. Hanuman & Ors.
1.Rs. 5,00,000/ for a period of 01 year.
2.Rs. 5,00,000/ for a period of 02 years.
3.Rs. 5,00,000/ for a period of 03 years.
4.Rs. 5,00,000/ for a period of 04 years.
5.Rs. 5,00,000/ for a period of 05 years.
6.Rs. 5,00,000/ for a period of 06 years.
7.Rs. 5,00,000/ for a period of 07 years.
8.Rs. 5,00,000/ for a period of 08 years.
9.Rs. 5,00,000/ for a period of 09 years.
10.Rs. 5,00,000/ for a period of 10 years.
11.Rs. 5,00,000/ for a period of 11 years.
12.Rs. 5,00,000/ for a period of 12 years.
13.Rs. 5,00,000/ for a period of 13 years.
14.Rs. 5,00,000/ for a period of 14 years.
15.Rs. 5,00,000/ for a period of 15 years.
16.Rs. 5,00,000/ for a period of 16 years.
17.Rs. 5,00,000/ for a period of 17 years.
18.Rs. 5,00,000/ for a period of 18 years.
In the share of Petitioner no. 2 (Brother of the deceased)
22.A sum of Rs. 2,00,000/ alongwith the proportionate interest thereon, is awarded to the petitioner no.2 being brother of the deceased. This amount is directed to be kept in the form of fixed deposit for a period of three years.
Deposition of awarded amount with STATE BANK OF INDIA, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi.
23.In consonance to the idea conceptualized and formulated in various land mark judgments of our own Hon'ble High Court, by which part of the awarded amount is ordered to be kept in fixed deposit / savings account by Hon'ble High Court, respondent no.3 is directed to deposit the awarded amount in favour of the petitioners with State Bank of India, Saket Courts Complex Branch, against account of petitioners within a period of 30 days from today, failing which it shall be liable to Petition No. : 75279/16 Page No.14/16 Gita Devi & Ors. vs. Hanuman & Ors.
pay future interest @ 12% per annum till realization (for the delayed period).
24.The respondent no. 3 is directed to credit the amount directly to the MACT account of State Bank of India, District Court, Saket branch. Details of the bank i.e. IFSC code etc. have been provided to the ld. counsel for the insurance company.
25.Upon the aforesaid amount being deposited, the State Bank of India, Saket Court Complex, New Delhi, is directed to keep the awarded amount in the "fixed deposit / saving account'' in the following manner:
1.The interest on the fixed deposit be paid to the petitioners / claimants by Automatic Credit of interest of their saving bank accounts with State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi.
2.Withdrawal from the aforesaid account shall be permitted to claimants / petitioners after due verification and the Bank shall issue photo identity Card to claimants / petitioners to facilitate identity.
3.No cheque book be issued to claimants / petitioners without the permission of this Court.
4.The original fixed deposit receipts shall be retained by the Bank in safe custody. However, the original Pass Book shall be given to the claimants/petitioners alongwith the photocopy of the FDRs .
5.The original fixed deposit receipts shall be handed over to claimants / petitioners at the end of the fixed deposit period.
6.No loan, advance or withdrawal shall be allowed on the said fixed deposit receipts without the permission of this Court.
7.Half yearly statement of account be filed by the Bank in this Court.
8.On the request of claimants / petitioners, the Bank shall transfer the Savings Account to any other branch of State Bank of India, according to their convenience.
9.Claimants / petitioners shall furnish all the relevant documents for opening of the Saving Bank Account and Fixed Deposit Account to Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Saket Courts Complex Branch, New Delhi.
10.The bank is also directed to get the nomination form filled by the claimants at the time of preparation of FDRs.
Petition No. : 75279/16 Page No.15/16Gita Devi & Ors. vs. Hanuman & Ors.
11.The bank is also directed to keep the money received from the respondents in an FDR in the name of the bank till the FDRs are prepared in the name of the claimant, so that the benefit of better interest may be given to the claimant for the said period.
12.The Manager, State Bank of India, District Court Saket branch is directed not to release any amount to the petitioner from this branch, unless ordered by the Tribunal in terms of the order of the Hon'ble High Court in FAO No. 842/2003 and CM Applications No. 32859/2017, 4112541127/2017 in Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. dated 09.03.2018. It is made clear that the amount including the maturity amount of the FDRs shall be released to the petitioner through RTGS/ NEFT directly in the personal bank account of the petitioners of the bank nearest to their place of residence, the details of which have been given by the petitioner to the Tribunal and same details shall be given by them to the Manager SBI, District Court Saket branch.
DIRECTIONS FOR THE RESPONDENT NO. 3 :
26.The respondent no.3 is directed to file compliance report of its having deposited the awarded amount with State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch in this Tribunal within a period of 30 days from today.
27.The respondent no.3 shall intimate the claimants / petitioners about their having deposited the cheques in favor of the petitioners in terms of the award, at the address of the petitioners mentioned at the title of the award, so as to facilitate them to withdraw the same.
28.Copy of this award / judgment be given to the parties for compliance.
29.The case is now fixed for compliance by the insurance company for 14.12.2018. SAMEER Digitally signed by SAMEER BAJPAI BAJPAI Date: 2018.11.16 Announced in the Open Court 16:05:54 +0530 on 14th Day of November, 2018 (SAMEER BAJPAI) Presiding Officer : MACT South Distt. : Saket Court Petition No. : 75279/16 Page No.16/16