Delhi District Court
Neha Walia vs . National Insurance Co. Ltd on 1 September, 2012
1
Neha Walia Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd
IN THE COURT OF SHRI SANJIV JAIN : PRESIDING OFFICER : MACT02
SOUTH DISTRICT : SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI
In Suit No. 456/10
Unique Case ID No. 02406C0733542009
Ms. Neha Walia
D/o Sh. Kuldeep Ahluwalia
R/o GH9/631
Paschim Vihar
New Delhi87.
( presently at H6, Greater Kailash PartII, New Delhi)
...... Petitioner
Versus
1. The National Insurance Company Limited.
Regional Office I
Level IV, Tower II
Jeevan Bharti Building
124, Connaught Place
New Delhi.
2. Anil Moolchandani
C148, PhaseI, Naraina Industrial Area
New Delhi.
3. Mohit Badlani
S/o Sh. Sushil Badlani
R/o A101, OPS Society
Sector51, Noida
Uttar Pradesh
......Respondents
Suit no. 456/10 1/ 25
2
Neha Walia Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd
Date of Institution : 20.11.2007
Date of reserving of judgment/order : 22.08.2012
Date of pronouncement : 01.09.2012
J U D G M E N T :
1. This petition u/s. 166 & 140 of the M.V. Act, 1988 as amended upto date (hereinafter referred to as Act) has been filed by Ms. Neha Walia claiming a compensation of Rs. 2 Crores for the injuries sustained by her in an accident which took place on 15.01.06 at about 4.30 a.m at M. G. Road, Andheria More, New Delhi.
2. The case of the petitioner in brief is that on 15.01.06 at about 4.30 a.m, she was going from Gurgaon to Paschim Vihar in a Car bearing no. DL 9CC 4214. It was being driven by respondent no. 3 in a rash and negligent manner and at a high speed. When the car was near the Andheria More red light crossing, Subu House opposite Ambedkar Colony, it climbed on the central verge and struck against a tree . Due to forceful impact, all the occupants of the car including the petitioner sustained injuries. She was taken to AIIMS where her MLC was Suit no. 456/10 2/ 25 3 Neha Walia Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd prepared. She was thereafter shifted to Indraprastha Apollo hospital and then Balaji Action Medical Institute for her further treatment. A case was registered at the police station Mehrauli vide FIR no. 38/06. She was 24 years of age. She was sales consultant with Tecnovate Solutions Pvt Ltd. She used to get Rs. 15417/ per month. It was stated that a huge expenditure was incurred on her treatment. It was stated that the respondent no.2 was the owner of the car and it was insured with respondent no.1.
3. Notice of the petition was given to the respondents.
4. All the respondents contested the petition and filed their written statements. Respondents no. 2 & 3 denied that the car was being driven at a high speed, rashly and negligently. They stated that the accident took place when the respondent no. 3 was in process of avoiding a major accident. A bullock car was coming on the road from the wrong side. They stated that respondent no. 3 was also taken to AIIMS with the other injured persons as he became unconscious on account of severe head injuries. He was also shifted to Apollo Suit no. 456/10 3/ 25 4 Neha Walia Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd Hospital . Respondent no.1 alleged that in the MLC, it is mentioned by the doctor that Mohit Badlani was under the influence of Alcohol. It was stated that it was due to this reason, the accident took place. It however admitted that the vehicle was insured with it vide policy no. 604201/31/04/6103485 and it was valid from 14.03.05 to 13.03.06.
5. From the pleadings, following issues were framed vide order dated 15.07.08 :
(i) Whether the petitioner Ms. Neha Walia received injuries due to an accident on 15.01.06 at about 4.30 AM at M. G. Road, Andheria More, New Delhi which was caused due to rash and negligent driving car no. DL9CC4214 by R3, the vehicle owned by R2 and insured with R1/Insurance Company?
(ii) The amount of compensation petitioner is entitled to?
(iii) Relief.
6. Parties were thereafter called upon to substantiate their case by leading evidence.
Suit no. 456/10 4/ 25 5
Neha Walia Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd
7. The petitioner examined herself as PW1. She tendered her affidavit in evidence Ex.PW1/A and additional affidavit Ex. PW1/B. She also filed the documents Ex. PW1/1 to Ex. PW1/44. She examined Sh. Rakesh Sharma, Assistant Manager TED (HR) as PW2, Sh. Virender Vikram Singh. Physiotherapist, Indian Spinal Injuries Center as PW3, Smt. Usha Ahluwalia as PW4, Sh. Sunil Juyal, Legal Assistant, Intelenet Global Services as PW5 and Dr. Manish Kumar, Senior Physician, RML Hospital as PW5.
8. The respondent no. 1 examined HC Ashok Kumar as R1W1, Clerk from the court of Sh. Sandeep Garg, Ld. MM, Saket Courts as R1W2 and Sh. Rajesh Ranjan from Administration Office as R1W3.
9. I have heard the arguments advanced by Ld. counsel Sh. S. K. Rathi for the petitioner and Ms. Shanti Devi Raman, Ld. counsel for respondent no. 1.
Suit no. 456/10 5/ 25 6
Neha Walia Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd
10. It was submitted by Ld. Counsel for the petitioner that due to the accident petitioner has suffered from 100 % disability. Besides doing job with Wipro Spectramind, she had been pursuing her studies as a B.A ( II) year student. Respondent no. 3 has admitted the factum of accident. Testimony of PW1 and the charge sheet prove the manner of the accident. Nothing material has come in the crossexamination of PW1 to disprove this fact. The petitioner has placed on record all the medical documents and examined the witnesses to prove the injuries and the expenses incurred on her treatment. The petitioner was an occupant in the car and was covered under the policy being third party. There is no evidence on record that respondent no. 3 was under the influence of liquor.
11. Ld. counsel for respondent no. 1 on the contrary argued that the petitioner was an occupant in the car and was not a third party. The respondent no. 3 was driving the car under the influence of liquor and thus, the insurance company has no liability to indemnify the insured. The police had challaned the respondent no. 3 U/s 185 of the Motor Vehicle Act.
Suit no. 456/10 6/ 25 7
Neha Walia Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd
12. I have considered the submissions and perused the record.
13. My findings on the issues are as follows :
I S S U E N O . 1
14. It is well settled law that where petition under Section 166 of the Act is instituted, it becomes the duty of the petitioner to establish rash and negligent driving. To prove rash and negligent driving in a petition under Motor Vehicles Act, Tribunal need not go into the technicality because strict rules of procedure and evidence are not followed. Basically, in road accident cases, Tribunal is simply to quantify the compensation which is just rational and reasonable on the basis of inquiry. The proceedings under Motor Vehicles Act are not akin to the proceedings in a civil suit. Further, roving enquiry is not required to prove the rashness and negligence on the part of the driver as has been held in Kaushumma Begum and others Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 2001 ACJ 421 SC.
15. PW1 has stated that she was on the rear seat of the car bearing no. Suit no. 456/10 7/ 25 8
Neha Walia Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd DL9CC 4124 being driven by respondent no. 3 at M. G. Road. She stated that the car was being driven at a high speed , rashly and negligently. She had asked the respondent no. 3 to slow down the car and drive it properly but her advise fell on deaf ears and the respondent no. 3 continued to drive the car with high speed, rashly and negligently. She stated that when the car was near the red light of the crossing of Andheria More, opposite Ambedkar Colony, respondent no. 3 lost control over the car and it climbed on the central verge and struck against a tree. She stated that due to forceful impact, all the occupants including the respondent no. 3 sustained multiple injuries. She placed on record the FIR, report of the IO, her statement, site plan, photographs of the car Ex. PW1/5 ( colly) and stated that from the spot they were taken to AIIMS. She proved her MLC Ex. PW1/19. She denied that the car was not a high speed nor it was being driven rashly and negligently. She also denied that to avoid a major accident with a bullock cart which had come from the opposite side in front of the car, the accident took place or that the visibility was low. She stated that she does not know what the boys/occupants of the car had eaten or drunk in the party. R1W1 brought the FIR record Ex. PW1/16 and Suit no. 456/10 8/ 25 9 Neha Walia Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd stated that when he reached the spot he found the car in accidental condition and the injured by that time had been removed to hospital. He stated that his investigation revealed that Mohit was driving the car at a fast speed and hit a tree at Andheria More. He got the spot photographed. He stated that he was drunk. He stated that Mohit was having driving licence to drive the car. He denied that during investigation, he came to know a bullock car had come from the wrong side and in order to save the bullock cart, the car struck against the tree. R1W2 brought the file of the case FIR 38/06 registered at the Police station and stated that the other injured Rahul Sharma and Vinayak Malik had compromised with respondent no. 3 and given the statement on 12.07.11. He also filed the copy of the charge sheet Ex. PW1/16 to Ex. PW1/18 and the MLC of Mohit Ex. R1W1/1.
16. Perusal of the charge sheet reveals that at the time of accident, respondent no. 3 was driving the car and he was driving in a manner so rash and negligent. He could not control the car and struck against a standing truck at the central verge. The accident had resulted into the injuries on the person of the petitioner and other occupants. It has Suit no. 456/10 9/ 25 10 Neha Walia Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd come on record that respondent no. 2 was owner of the car and it was insured with respondent no. 1.
17. As regards the contention that the respondent no. 3 was in drunken condition at the time of accident as he was charged U/s 3/185 of Motor Vehicle Act, in the instant case, IO has filed the MLC of Mohit Badlani, respondent no. 3 as per which there was smell of alcohol from his person but the doctor did not specify the quantity of alcohol nor any blood or urine test was done. It was held in the case of "Bachu Bhai Hassan Ali Karyani Vs. State of Maharashtra 1971 ACJ 116" that the symptoms of smell of alcohol are not sufficient to consider that the driver was drunk or was under the influence of alcohol. Urine and blood reports ought to have been brought on record. In the instant case the respondent no.1 did not bring on record the quantity of alcohol or the blood or urine test of the petitioner to prove that respondent no. 3 was under the influence of alcohol. In the absence of any document on record/report it cannot be inferred that the respondent no. 3 was under the influence of liquor. Suit no. 456/10 10/ 25 11
Neha Walia Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd
18. Issue no.1 is accordingly decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
I S S U E N O . 2
19. The petitioner has claimed Rs. Two Crores as compensation in respect of the injuries sustained by her. In a road accident a person is entitled to compensation for the pecuniary and nonpecuniary damages.
20. It has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court in R.O. Hattangadi V/s Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd., AIR 1995 SC 755 that: "Broadly speaking, while fixing the amount of compensation payable to a victim of an accident, the damages have to be assessed separately as pecuniary damages and special damages. Pecuniary damages are those which the victim has actually incurred and which are capable of being calculated in terms of money; whereas nonpecuniary damages are those which are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. In order to appreciate two concepts pecuniary damages may include expenses incurred by the claimant: (i) medical attendance; (ii) loss of earning of profit up to the date of trial; (iii) other material loss. So far as nonpecuniary damages are concerned, they may include (i) damages for Suit no. 456/10 11/ 25 12 Neha Walia Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd mental and physical shock, pain and suffering already suffered or likely to be suffered in future; (ii) damages to compensate for the loss of amenities of life which may include a variety of matters ie. on account of injury, the claimant may not be able to walk, run or sit ; (iii) damages for the loss of expectation of life, ie. on account of injury the normal longevity of the person concerned is shortened; (iv) inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life."
COMPENSATION FOR EXPENSES INCURRED ON MEDICAL TREATMENT
21. PW1 has stated that from the spot she was taken to AIIMS where her MLC Ex. PW1/19 was prepared. Since her condition was serious, she was shifted to Apollo hospital on the same day. Investigation revealed that she sustained fracture nasal bone of left side, C2, D3D4, D1,D3, Bony fragments in spinal canal ( D3D5), fracture 2nd rib and injuries on all over her body. She filed the C.T report Ex. PW1/20, MRA report Ex. PW1/21 to Ex. PW1/22 and the medical prescriptions Ex. PW1/23. She stated that she remained hospitalised till 03.02.06. She filed the discharge summary Ex. PW1/24. She stated that she was shifted to Balaji Action Medical Institute on 03.02.06 where she remained for her Suit no. 456/10 12/ 25 13 Neha Walia Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd treatment till 06.02.06 with strict bed rest advice. She proved the discharge summary Ex PW1/25. She stated that she got herself examined in RML Hospital and 100 % disability was assessed by the medical board in relation to her both lower limbs vide certificate Ex. PW1/26. She also filed the certificate issued by the Apollo hospital whereby it was certified that she has been suffering from 100 % permanent physical disability in relation to her body as she is paralyzed below the level of D2 vertebrae vide Ex. PW1/27. She stated that Apollo Hospital vide letter Ex. PW1/29 dated 11.04.06 has advised her for taking constant support of two nurses, physiotherapy, rehabilitation help and movement of wheel chair. She has stated that she incurred Rs. 11,23,926/ vide bills Ex. PW1/43 ( colly) and her treatment would continue for the rest of her life.
22. PW3 has stated that he has been giving physiotherapy to the petitioner since 2007 and he charges Rs. 400/ per visit. He filed the original receipts Ex. PW1/43 to Ex. PW1/44 and stated that he visits her residence almost everyday. He also filed his registration L18406. Suit no. 456/10 13/ 25 14
Neha Walia Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd
23. PW4 is the mother of the petitioner. She has stated that petitioner has 100 % disability . She has become dependent on others for her life and an average of Rs. 35,000/ is being spent on her subsistence, medical care and treatment. She and her daughter look after her.
24. PW5 Dr. Manish Kumar proved the disability certificate Ex. PW1/27 and stated that in view of the disability suffered by her, she cannot do anything of her own.
25. Taking into consideration the testimonies of the above witnesses and the documents placed on record, I find that due to the accident, the petitioner sustained multiple injuries which made her 100 % disabled. She cannot do any work of her own and became dependent on others. She has filed the medical bills of Rs. 4,80,480/, bills for physiotherapy for Rs. 4,00,400/ and bills of Rs. 31,500/ towards Acupuncture treatment and stated that her treatment is to continue for life long. So future medical expenses are also to be taken. Looking into her injuries and all the facts, I award Rs. 10,00,000/ to the petitioner towards medical expenses already incurred and future medical Suit no. 456/10 14/ 25 15 Neha Walia Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd expenses.
COMPENSATION FOR PAIN AND SUFFERINGS AND ENJOYMENT OF LIFE :
26. Testimony of PW1, PW3, PW4 and PW5 go to show that the petitioner has suffered from multiple injuries. She became 100 % disabled. She was young girl pursuing her studies and doing job. Now she has become dependent on others. She requires continuous physiotherapy. Further, she cannot do anything of her own in her life time. There is no likely chance of her improvement in near future. The injuries caused her lot of pain and sufferings. Looking into the injuries and the facts and circumstances of the case, I award a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/ towards pain & sufferings and enjoyment of life. COMPENSATION FOR SPECIAL DIET, ATTENDANT CHARGES AND CONVEYANCE CHARGES :
27. PW1 has stated that due to the accident she remained admitted in the hospital for number of days. She continued following up her treatment. Suit no. 456/10 15/ 25 16
Neha Walia Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd She has become 100 % disabled and requires consistent monitoring. She needs permanent attendant even to perform ordinary pursuits for life time. She has filed the bills for conveyance and transport for Rs. 31,541/. Keeping in view these facts, I award Rs. 32,000/ to the petitioner towards conveyance and Rs. 25,000/ towards special diet.
28. The accident took place on 15.01.06. Since then she has taken the services of permanent attendant. She had also engaged nurse for her care whom she paid Rs. 1,99,700/ vide bills placed on record. I award Rs. 2,00,000/ to the petitioner towards nursing charges. As per the documents available on record, she was born on 12.10.83. Thus her age on the date of accident was 22 years. Taking the minimum wages of attendant as on the date of accident as Rs. 3165/ per month and taking a multiplier of 18, the attendant charges are calculated as 12x3165/x18=6,83,640/. Since the part services are being rendered by her mother and sister, I award Rs. 4,00,000/ to the petitioner towards attendant charges.
Suit no. 456/10 16/ 25 17
Neha Walia Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd COMPENSATION FOR FUTURE LOSS OF INCOME & LOSS OF AMENITIES :
29. The petitioner was pursuing B. A course . At the time of accident, she had worked with Wipro Spectramind as an associate. She also took inhouseIndustrial Training from her employer. In January 2005, she was drawing Rs. 15,565/per month. She filed her salary slips Ex. PW1/7 to Ex. PW1/10. She was offered employment in M/s Tecnovate E Solutions Pvt Ltd in November 2005 as sales consultant on a salary of Rs. 15,417/ per month where she worked till accident. She proved her salary slips Ex. PW1/11 to Ex. PW1/14. PW2 and PW5 corroborated her testimony as to her employment with Spectramind and Technovate & Solutions. PW5 has stated that after the accident, the petitioner did not work however her services were not terminated by the company.
30. Record shows that the petitioner was 22 years of age at the time of accident. She had a good future to excel in her career. Had she been continuing her job, she would have earned much more, so future Suit no. 456/10 17/ 25 18 Neha Walia Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd prospects are to be taken in the present case for calculating the loss of income. It was held in the case of "Mohan Soni Vs. Ram Avtar Tomar & Ors. I (2012) ACC 1 (SC)" that in the context of loss of future earning, any physical disability resulting from an accident has to be judged with reference to the nature of work being performed by the person suffering the disability. Reference was also made of the case "Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar (2011) 1 SCC 343." In the present case, the petitioner has become total disabled. She cannot move her lower limbs and has become fully dependent on others even to perform her ordinary pursuits. Taking into consideration these facts, her functional disability is taken as 100%. It was held in a case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd Vs. Vijay Kumar Mittal & Ors III ( 2007) ACC 676 that while estimating future loss of income, the court has to take into account the future prospects of the injured. Future increase in minimum wages tends to increase by 100 % every ten years. Taking a multiplier of '18', adding the future prospect @ 30 % as laid down in case of Rakhi Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors MAC App 390/2011, dated 16.07.2012 by Hon'ble High Court, the loss of income on account of permanent disability is calculated as 12 x (15,417/ + 30 % x 15,417/ )x Suit no. 456/10 18/ 25 19 Neha Walia Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd 18 x 100% = Rs.43,29,094/ which is rounded off to Rs.43,29,000/. I award a sum of Rs. 43,29,000/ to the petitioner towards loss of income on account of permanent disability.
COMPENSATION FOR LOSS OF AMENTITIES
31. The petitioner was 22 years of age at the time of accident. She was unmarried. Now she has become dependent on others. Due to permanent disability, she will not be able to participate in normal activities of her daily life to pursue her talents, recreation interest, hobbies and evocations . Looking into her age, injuries and facts and circumstances of the case, I award Rs. 2,00,000/ towards loss of amenities and loss of marriage prospects.
32. Thus the total compensation in favour of the petitioner is assessed as under :
MEDICAL EXPENSES : Rs. 10,00,000/
PAIN & SUFFERINGS &
ENJOYMENT OF LIFE : Rs. 2,00,000/
SPECIAL DIET &
CONVEYANCE CHARGES : Rs. 57,000/
NURSING CHARGES : Rs. 2,00,000/
Suit no. 456/10 19/ 25
20
Neha Walia Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd
ATTENDANT CHARGES : Rs. 4,00,000/
FUTURE LOSS OF INCOME
ON ACCOUNT OF PERMANENT
DISABILITY : Rs. 43,29,000/
LOSS OF AMENITIES : Rs. 2,00,000/
===========
TOTAL : Rs. 63,86,000/
Less:Interim Compensation
paid vide order dated 15.07.08 : Rs. 25,000/
NET AMOUNT : Rs. 63,61,000/
===========
L I A B I L I T Y
33. As the offending vehicle was being driven by respondent no.3 therefore, primary liability to compensate the petitioner remains with that of respondent no. 3. Since the vehicle was owned by respondent no. 2 so he becomes vicariously liable to compensate the petitioner. It is an admitted position on record that the vehicle was insured with respondent no.1, therefore, respondent no. 1 becomes contractually liable to compensate the petitioner for the above mentioned amount. Suit no. 456/10 20/ 25 21
Neha Walia Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd R E L I E F
34. In view of my findings I award a sum of Rs. 63,61,000/ (Rs. Sixty Three Lakhs and Sixty One Thousand only) as compensation with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of realization of the amount in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent no. 1 on account of its liability(excluding the period from 11.05.09 to 18.10.11).
35. Out of this awarded amount, a sum of Rs. 30,00,000/ be kept by the State Bank of India, Saket Courts, New Delhi in the form of "Fixed Deposit" in the following manner :
(a) A sum of Rs. 10,00,000/ for a period of 3 years.
(b) A sum of Rs. 10,00,000/ for a period of 6 years.
(c) A sum of Rs. 10,00,000./ for a period of 9 years. Deposition of awarded amount with STATE BANK OF INDIA, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi.
36. Respondent No.1, Insurance Company is directed to pay the awarded amount by way of cheque in favour of the petitioner, to be deposited in Suit no. 456/10 21/ 25 22 Neha Walia Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd this Tribunal, within a period of 45 days of this order failing which Insurance Company shall be liable to pay future interest @ 12% per annum on the awarded amount till its realization (for the delayed period).
37. In terms of the directions given by Hon'ble High Court in case titled "
Rajesh Tyagi Vs. Jaibir Singh and Ors." bearing FAO number 842/2003 decided on 08.06.20009, UCO Bank/ State Bank of India has agreed to open a Special Fixed Deposit Account for the victims of road accidents.
38. As per orders of Hon'ble High Court in case titled " New India Assurance Co. Ltd Vs. Ganga Devi & Ors bearing MAC. App. 135/2008" as well as in another case titled as " Union of India V/s Nanisiri" bearing M.A.C. Appeal No. 682/2005 dated 13.01.2010, directions were given to the Claims Tribunal to deposit part of the awarded amount in fixed deposit in a phased manner depending upon the financial status and financial needs of the claimants.
(i) The interest on the fixed deposit be paid to the petitioner / claimant by Automatic Credit of interest of their saving bank accounts with State Suit no. 456/10 22/ 25 23 Neha Walia Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd Bank of India, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi.
(ii) Withdrawal from the aforesaid account shall be permitted to claimant / petitioner after due verification and the Bank shall issue photo identity Card to claimant / petitioner to facilitate identity.
(iii) No cheque book be issued to claimant / petitioner without the permission of this Court.
(iv) The original fixed deposit receipts shall be retained by the Bank in safe custody. However, the original Pass Book shall be given to the claimant / petitioner alongwith the photocopy of the FDR's .
(v) The original fixed deposit receipts shall be handed over to claimant / petitioner at the end of the fixed deposit period.
(vi) No loan, advance or withdrawal shall be allowed on the said fixed deposit receipts without the permission of this Court.
(vii) Half yearly statement of account be filed by the Bank in this Court.
(viii)On the request of claimant / petitioner, the Bank shall transfer the Savings Account to any other branch of State Bank of India, according to their convenience.
39. Claimant / petitioner 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, Suit no. 456/10 23/ 25 24 Neha Walia Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd New Delhi.
40. Copy of this Judgment be given to the parties for compliance.
41. Nazir attached to the Tribunal of undersigned is directed to issue notice to the petitioner immediately on deposit of the cheque of the awarded amount by the Insurance Company in this Tribunal so as to facilitate her to get the same released.
42. File be consigned to Record Room after giving the cheque to the petitioner.
Announced in the open court
on 01th Day of September, 2012 (SANJIV JAIN)
Presiding Officer : MACT02
South District : Saket Courts
New Delhi : 01.09.2012
Suit no. 456/10 24/ 25
25
Neha Walia Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd
Neha Walia Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd
Suit No. 456/10
01.09.2012
Present : Ld. Counsel for the parties.
Vide separate order of even date a compensation of Rs. 63,61,000/ (Rs. Sixty Three Lakhs and Sixty One Thousand only) alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the petition till realization of the amount is passed in favour of petitioner(excluding the period from 11.05.09 to 18.10.11).
Copy of the award be given to the parties.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(SANJIV JAIN) Presiding Officer : MACT02 South District : Saket Courts New Delhi : 01.09.2012 Suit no. 456/10 25/ 25