Delhi District Court
Omwati And Ors vs Rahul And Ors on 3 July, 2024
IN THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
NORTH WEST, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
PRESIDED BY SH. SHIVAJI ANAND,
==============================================
UID No. / CNR No. DLNW01-003272-2019 MACT CASE No. 171/2019 FIR No. 507/18, PS Kanjhawla In the matter of :
1. Omwati, W/o Late Sh. Sahab Singh,
2. Santosh Kumar, S/o Late Sh. Sahab Singh
3. Rajender S/o Late Sh. Sahab Singh
4. Sanjay Kumar S/o Late Sh. Sahab Singh
5. Sarvesh D/o Late Sh. Sahab Singh
6. Narender S/o Late Sh. Sahab Singh
7. Shelesh S/o Late Sh. Sahab Singh
8. Naresh S/o Late Sh. Sahab Singh All R/o Shah Garh, ALIgarh, UP-20129 Also at H No. 8233, Bulla Colony, Kanjhawla, Delhi MACT Case No. 171/2019(FIR no. 507/18) Omwati & ors vs Rahul Page no. 1 of 18 .....Petitioners Vs.
1. Rahul S/o Sh. Lekh Raj R/o Vansh Arth Movers 100 Futa Road, Kanjhawla Industrial Area, Kanjhawla, Delhi Also at :
H. No. 1265, Village Gunaa Hut, PS Deverneya, Teh, Behrei Distt Barley, UP ....Driver/R1
2. Govind, S/o Sh. Bhim Singh R/o 150, VPO, Daryapur, Delhi .... Owner
3. National Insurance Company Ltd.
Division No. XI, 6/90, 2nd Floor, Padam Singh Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi -110005 ...Respondents Date of filing of petition : 03.04.2019 Date of final Arguments : 08.05.2024 Date of Decision : 03.07.2024 Appearance (s) : Sh. P K Mishra, Ld. Counsel for petitioner.
None for R1 & R2.
Sh. V K Gupta, Ld counsel for R3.
JUDGMENT/AWARD
1. Vide this judgment/award, I shall dispose off the petition U/s 140 &166 of Motor Vehicle Act (in short "MV Act") pertaining to the death of Late Sahab Singh (in short, the deceased) in road accident.
FACTUAL POSITION AND PLEADINGS MACT Case No. 171/2019(FIR no. 507/18) Omwati & ors vs Rahul Page no. 2 of 18
1. The brief facts relevant for disposal of the present petition are that on 17.12.2018, at about 07:45 AM, the deceased alongwith Ramji Lal was sitting besides at one corner of footpath and in the meantime, a truck bearing no. HR-38T-0466 hit Sahab Singh with a great force. As a result, he sustained crush injuries.
2. An FIR No. 507/18, PS Kanjhawla was registered U/s 279/304A IPC.
3. Respondent no. 1 & 2 have filed their WS wherein the allegations against him are denied and stated that due to early morning, deceased was not visible and road visibility was 0 % due to smoke.
4. Respondent no. 3 have filed his WS wherein it is stated that driver of offending vehicle produced DL issued from Manipur and there is no document showing that he is resident of Manipur rather as per chargesheet, he was resident of Baraeli, UP and abovesaid incident was a result of negligent act of R1 and R2 is not liable to pay the compensation as R1 was at fault while driving the vehicle.
ISSUES:
5. After completion of pleadings, issues were framed by this Tribunal on 21.12.2019:
1. Whether deceased Sahab Singh S/o Sh. Pacham expired due to injuries suffered in road traffic accident on 17.12.2018 at about 07:45 AM, at 100 foota Road, Kanjhawla, Delhi due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle bearing no. HR-38T-0466 which was being driven by driver Sh. Rahul, S/o Sh. Lekh Raj, on the said date, time and place ? OPP.
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for MACT Case No. 171/2019(FIR no. 507/18) Omwati & ors vs Rahul Page no. 3 of 18 compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP.
3. Relief.
PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE
6. In order to prove their case, petitioner has examined three witnesses i.e PW1 Smt. Omwati(wife of deceased) and PW2 Sh. Naresh Kumar to prove his case.
7. PW-1, Smt. Omwati, who has deposed in terms of her affidavit of evidence as Ex. PW-1/A. She relied upon Election I Card as Ex. PW1/1, Death Certificate Ex. PW1/2, Copy of Adhar Card of petitioner no. 1 as Ex. PW1/3, Copy of Adhar Card of petitioner no. 2 as Ex. PW1/4, Copy of Adhar Card of petitioner no. 3 as Ex. PW1/5, Copy of Adhar Card of petitioner no. 4 as Ex. PW1/6, Copy of Adhar Card of petitioner no. 5 as Ex. PW1/7, Copy of Adhar Card of petitioner no. 6 as Ex. PW1/8, Copy of Adhar Card of petitioner no. 7 as Ex. PW1/9, Copy of Adhar Card of petitioner no. 8 as Ex. PW1/10, Copy of DAR as Ex. PW1/11(same was de-exhibited later on) & Copy of School Leaving Certificate of deceased as Ex. PW1/12. She was cross examined at length on behalf of petitioner.
8. PW2 Sh. Naresh Kumar was also examined and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex. PW1/A. His Adhar Card has already been exhibited as Ex. PW1/10. He was also cross examined by counsel for respondents.
RESPONDENT'S EVIDENCE:
MACT Case No. 171/2019(FIR no. 507/18) Omwati & ors vs Rahul Page no. 4 of 18
9. Respondents has not lead their evidence in their defence.
ARGUMENTS & FINDINGS:
10. I have heard ld. Counsel for the petitioner and respondents and have gone through the testimony o f t h e w i t n e s s e s , the pleadings and the documents. My issue wise findings in the case are as under :-
ISSUE NO.1 "1. Whether deceased Sahab Singh S/o Sh. Pacham expired due to injuries suffered in road traffic accident on 17.12.2018 at about 07:45 AM, at 100 foota Road, Kanjhawla, Delhi due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle bearing no. HR-38T-0466 which was being driven by driver Sh. Rahul, S/o Sh. Lekh Raj, on the said date, time and place ? OPP..
11. It is well settled that the procedure followed for proceedings conducted by an accident tribunal is similar to that followed by a civil court and in civil matters the facts are required to be established by preponderance of probabilities only and not by strict rules of evidence or beyond reasonable doubts as are required in a criminal prosecution. The burden of proof in a civil case is never as heavy as that is required in a criminal case, but in a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, this burden is infact even lesser than that in a civil case. Reference in this regard can be made to the propositions of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bimla Devi and others Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others, reported in (2009) 13 SC 530, which were reiterated in the subsequent judgment in the case of Parmeshwari Vs. Amir Chand and others 2011 (1) SCR 1096 (Civil Appeal MACT Case No. 171/2019(FIR no. 507/18) Omwati & ors vs Rahul Page no. 5 of 18 No.1082 of 2011) and also recently in another case Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., 2018 Law Suit (SC) 303.
12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its full bench decision in matter "United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Shila Datta & Ors." (2011) 10 SCC 509 has made following observations about inquiry contemplated under MV Act:-
"5. A claim petition for compensation in regard to a motor accident (filed by the injured or in case of death, by the dependant family members) before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal constituted under section 165 of the Act is neither a suit nor an adversarial lis in the traditional sense. It is a proceedings in terms of and regulated by the provisions of Chapter XII of the Act which is a complete Code in itself. We may in this context refer to the following significant aspects in regard to the Tribunals and determination of compensation by Tribunals:
(i) A proceedings for award of compensation in regard to a motor accident before the Tribunal can be initiated either on an application for compensation made by the persons aggrieved (claimants) under section 166(1) or section 163A of the Act or suo moto by the Tribunal, by treating any report of accident (forwarded to the tribunal under section 158(6) of the Act as an application for compensation under section 166 (4) of the Act.(iii) In a proceedings initiated suo moto by the tribunal, the owner and driver are the respondents. The insurer is not a respondent, but a noticee under section 149(2) of the Act. Where a claim petition is filed by the injured or by the legal representatives of a person dying in a motor accident, the driver and owner have to be impleaded as respondents. The claimants need not inplead the insurer as a party. But they have the choice of impleading the insurer also as a party respondent.
When it is not impleaded as a party, the Tribunal is required to issue a notice under section 149(2) of the Act. If the insurer is impleaded as a party, it is issued as a regular notice of the proceedings.
(v) Though the tribunal adiudicates on a claim and determines the MACT Case No. 171/2019(FIR no. 507/18) Omwati & ors vs Rahul Page no. 6 of 18 compensation, it does not do so as in an adversarial litigation. On receipt of an application (either from the applicant or suo motu registration), the Tribunal gives notice to the insurer under section 149(2) of the Act, gives an opportunity of being heard to the parties to the claim petition as also the insurer, holds an inquiry into the claim and makes an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just. (Vide Section 168 of the Act).
(vi) The Tribunal is required to follow such summary procedure as it thinks fit. It may choose one or more persons possessing special knowledge of and matters relevant to inquiry, to the assist it in holding the enquiry (vide section 169 of the Act).
We have referred to the aforesaid provisions to show that an award by the tribunal cannot be seen as an adversarial adjudication between the litigating parties to a dispute, but a statutory determination of compensation on the occurrence of an accident, after due enquiry, in accordance with the statute."
13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in matter of "Dulcina Fernandes & ors. Vs. Joaquim Xavier Cruz & Anr." (2013) 10 SCC 646 while relying upon the above full bench decision has held/observed as under:-
"8. However, there are certain other features of the case which are more fundamental and, therefore, have to be specifically noticed. CW-2, who was at the relevant time working as the Head Constable of Main Eurtorim, Police Station, had deposed that a criminal case was registered against the first respondent in connection with the accident and that after investigation he was chargesheeted and sent up for trial. Though it is submitted at the Bar that the first respondent was acquitted in the said case what cannot be overlooked is the fact that upon investigation of the case registered against the first respondent, prime facie, materials showing negligence were found to put him on trial.. "
14. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in matter "National MACT Case No. 171/2019(FIR no. 507/18) Omwati & ors vs Rahul Page no. 7 of 18 Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smt. Pushpa Rana & ors." 2009 ACJ 287 has held/observed as under:-
"11. The last contention of the appellant insurance company is that the respondents claimants should have proved negligence on the part of the driver and in this regard the counsel has placed reliance on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Meena Variyal. On perusal of the award of the Tribunal, it becomes clear that the wife of the deceased had produced (i) certified copy of the criminal record of criminal case in FIR NO. 955/2004, pertaining to involvement of the offending vehicle, (ii) criminal record showing completion of investigation of police and issue of charge sheet under Section 279/304- A, IPC against the driver; (iii) certified copy of FIR, wherein criminal case against the driver was lodged; and (iv) recovery memo and mechanical inspection report of offending vehicle and vehicle of the deceased. These documents are sufficient proofs to reach the conclusion that the driver was negligent. Proceedings under Motor Vehicles Act are not akin to proceedings in a civil suit and hence strict rules of evidence are not required to be followed in this regard. Hence, this contention of the counsel for the appellant also falls face down. There is ample evidence on record to prove negligence on the part of the driver."
15. In view of the above cited case law, it is clear that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal only holds inquiries for determination of compensation on occurrence of an accident and it does not they do not sit in a suit or adversarial lis in traditional sense. The factum that the driver of offending vehicle has been charge sheeted by police after investigation of the criminal matter is sufficient to infer that he was negligent and responsible for the accident in question. A Tribunal can certainly rely upon the records of the case of criminal matter to reach such a conclusion.
MACT Case No. 171/2019(FIR no. 507/18) Omwati & ors vs Rahul Page no. 8 of 18
16. The defence taken by Insurance Company in its WS was that offending vehicle produced a DL issued from Manipur, however, this fact has been verified by the court and it is found that the DL was genuine. Therefore, this defence of Insurance Company cannot be taken into consideration.
17. Petitioners have examined only PW-1 & PW-2 to prove the rash and negligent driving of respondent no. 1.
18. For the respondents, none has been examined.
19. Besides the above, R-1 himself was the best witness who could have stepped into the witness box to challenge the depositions being made by PW-1 regarding the above accident and its manner etc., but he has not done so. Therefore, an adverse inference on this aspect is also required to be drawn against the respondents in view of the law laid down in case of Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Kamlesh, reported in 2009 (3) AD (Delhi) 310.
20. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the evidence which has come on record, it is held that the rashness and negligence on the part of driver of the offending vehicle, which is clearly visible and as such, was responsible not only for this accident, but also for everything that followed thereafter. Accordingly issue no.1 is decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
ISSUE NO. 22. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP.
MACT Case No. 171/2019(FIR no. 507/18) Omwati & ors vs Rahul Page no. 9 of 18
21. As this Tribunal has already held that R1 was responsible for the death of the deceased due to his neglect and default in driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time. Therefore, the petitioners have become entitled to be compensated for death of deceased in the above accident, but computation of compensation and liability to pay the same are required to be decided.
COMPENSATION:
22. Basically only three facts need to be established by the claimants for assessing compensation in the case of death :
(a) age of the deceased;
(b) income of the deceased; and the
(c) the number of dependents.
23. The issues to be determined by the Tribunal to arrive at the loss of dependency are:
(i) additions/deductions to be made for arriving at the income;
(ii) the deduction to be made towards the personal living expenses of the deceased; and
(iii) the multiplier to be applied with reference of the age of the deceased.
24. If these determinants are standardized, there will be uniformity and consistency in the decisions. There will be lesser need for detailed evidence. In this regard, though not quoted, reliance is placed upon, Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121.
MACT Case No. 171/2019(FIR no. 507/18) Omwati & ors vs Rahul Page no. 10 of 18
25. As already stated above, the claimant/petitioner no. 1 is the wife of deceased who deposed that all the family members were dependant on deceased. She has not placed on record any document to show deceased was employed as a labour and getting salary of Rs. 15,000/- to Rs. 20,000/- per month, however, no document has been placed.
26. The ld. Counsel for the petitioners further argued that future prospects should also be awarded to the petitioners as per law. Ld. Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the deceased was the sole earning member of the family and all the petitioners/claimants were dependent upon him for their livelihood. The ld. Counsel for the petitioners further argued that future prospects should also be awarded to the petitioners as per law.
27. According to the Aadhar Card of deceased and DAR, the age of deceased is taken as 62 years as on the date of accident. No document regarding the employment of deceased was produced. Hence, minimum wages of skilled worker would be taken as he was a labourer which is Rs. 16,962/- per month. Hence, the multiplier of "7" would be applicable in view of pronouncement made in case titled as Sarla Verma (supra).
28. Considering the fact that deceased was aged about 62 years of age at the time of accident and no future prospects is awarded to them. As per the judgment of NIC Vs. Pranay Sethi, no future prospects should be given after the age of 60 years.
29. The deceased was married and there are eight claimants/ MACT Case No. 171/2019(FIR no. 507/18) Omwati & ors vs Rahul Page no. 11 of 18 dependants upon him. Except his wife, rest of the LRs are sons and daughters of deceased and they are all married. There is nothing on record to show that none of the sons and daughters were dependent on the deceased. In such circumstances, only wife is considered as dependent upon the deceased. Thus, there has to be deduction of "half (1/2)", as per the mandate of Sarla Verma (supra). Thus, total loss of dependency would come out as under:
S. Head Amount Remarks
No (Rs.)
.
1 Monthly Income of deceased 16,962/-
(A)
2 Less: Personal expenses of 8,481/- (A)/2= (B)
deceased @ one fifth (1/2)
(B)
3 Monthly loss of dependency 8,481/- [(A)-(B)]=(C)
(C)
4 Annual Loss of dependency 1,01,772/- (C) x 12 = (D)
(D)
5 Multiplier @ 7 7,12,404/- (D) x
(E) 7(multiplier)
= (E)
6 Add: Future Prospects - Nil Nil
As after the age of 60 years, no
future prospects should be
awarded as per judgment of NIC
Vs. Pranay Sethi
Total 7,12,404/-
MACT Case No. 171/2019(FIR no. 507/18) Omwati & ors vs Rahul Page no. 12 of 18 LOSS OF LOVE & AFFECTION
30. After the judgment passed in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors. (supra) and recent judgment titled as New India Assurance Company Limited v. Somwati & Ors., Civil Appeal no. 3093 of 2020 the petitioners are not entitled to be compensated under this head. Further, Hon'ble Delhi High Court in appeal titled as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pooja & Ors, (supra) has been pleased to observe in para 18 of the judgment that the Constitution Bench decision in Pranay Sethi (supra) does not recognize any other non-pecuniary head of damages. Hence, no compensation is to be awarded to the petitioner under this head.
LOSS OF CONSORTIUM
31. In view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as, "New India Assurance Company Limited v. Somwati & Ors.", Civil Appeal No.3093 of 2020, dated 07.09.2020, I am of the considered opinion that the father and mother of deceased is entitled for payment of Rs. 44,000/- each towards loss of consortium. Consequently, a sum of Rs. 3,52,000/- (Rs. 44,000/- x 8) is awarded to the petitioners under this head.
LOSS OF ESTATE & FUNERAL EXPENSES
32. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case and in view of decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors." and also in case MACT Case No. 171/2019(FIR no. 507/18) Omwati & ors vs Rahul Page no. 13 of 18 Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram(2018 ACJ 2782) mentioned supra, a sum of Rs. 16,500/- is awarded in favour of petitioners on account of loss of estate and a sum of Rs. 16,500/- is awarded in favour of petitioners on account of funeral expenses.
33. Thus, the total compensation is assessed as under:
S. No. Head Amount (Rs.)
1 Loss of dependency 7,12,404/-
2 Loss of Consortium (Rs. 44,000 x 3,52,000/-
8)
3 Loss of Estate & Funeral Expenses 16,500/-
(@ 16,500/- )
TOTAL 10,80,904/-
34. Hence, the petitioners are awarded total compensation of Rs. 10,80,904/-(Rupees Ten Lacs Eighty Thousand Nine Hundred Four Only).
35. In this case also, It has been held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent no.1. There is no evidence on record that accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the deceased. The insurance company did not lead any evident to prove its case. LIABILITY:
36. Respondent No. 1 Driver 2 being the owner of the offending car are jointly and severely liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners. However, since the offending car was insured with respondent no. 3 at the time of accident, therefore, Insurance MACT Case No. 171/2019(FIR no. 507/18) Omwati & ors vs Rahul Page no. 14 of 18 Company is liable to pay the entire amount to the petitioner. As such, Respondent no. 3 is liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners.
ISSUE No.3/ RELIEF:
37. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, this tribunal awards compensation of Rs. 10,80,904/-(Rupees Ten Lacs Eighty Thousand Nine Hundred Four Only) alongwith interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f the date of filing of the petition i.e. 03.04.2019 till the date of actual payment. RELEASE
38. The statement of the Petitioners in terms of Clause 26 MCTAP was not recorded. Therefore, apportionment is withheld.
39. The entire compensation amount alongwith interest be kept in FDR(s) for the period till one of the minor children attains the age of majority.
40. The following conditions are to be adhered to by SBI, Rohini Courts, Delhi with respect to the fixed deposits:-
(a) The Bank shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of the claimant(s) i.e. the savings bank account(s) of the claimant(s) shall be an individual savings bank account(s) and not a joint account(s).
(b) The original fixed deposit shall be retained by the bank in safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by bank to the claimant(s).
(c) The monthly interest be credited by Electronic Clearing MACT Case No. 171/2019(FIR no. 507/18) Omwati & ors vs Rahul Page no. 15 of 18 System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant(s) near the place of their residence.
(d) The maturity amounts of the FDR(s) be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant (s) near the place of their residence.
(e) No loan, advance, withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the Court.
(f) The concerned bank shall not be issue any cheque book and/or debit card to claimant(s). However, in case the debit card and/or cheque book have already been issued, bank shall cancel the same before the disbursement of the award amount. The bank shall debit card (s) freeze the account of the claimant(s) so that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of the claimant(s) from any other branch of the bank.
(g) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the claimant(s) to the effect that no cheque book and/or debit card have been issued and shall not be issued without the permission of the Court and claimant(s) shall produce the passbook with the necessary endorsement before the Court on the next date fixed for compliance.
(h) It is clarified that the endorsement made by the bank along with the duly signed and stamped by the bank official on the passbook(s) of the claimant(s) is sufficient compliance of clause (g) above.
41. Copy of this Award alongwith one photograph each, specimen signatures, copy of bank passbook and copy of residence proof of the petitioner, be sent to Nodal Officer of SBI, Rohini Court, Branch, Delhi for information and necessary compliance.
42. The Bank(s) shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of the petitioner(s) i.e. the savings bank account(s) of the petitioner(s) shall be an individual savings bank account(s) and not a joint account(s). The original fixed deposit shall be retained by the SBI, Branch MACT Case No. 171/2019(FIR no. 507/18) Omwati & ors vs Rahul Page no. 16 of 18 Rohini Courts, Delhi in safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by the bank to the petitioner(s). The maturity amounts of the FDR(s) be credit by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the petitioner(s) near the place of their residence. No loan, advance, withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of this Tribunal.
43. A digital copy of this award be provided to the parties. Ahlmad is directed to send a copy of the award to Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate concerned and Delhi Legal Services Authority in view of Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 [(Directions at serial nos. 39, 40 of Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A)]. Further Nazir is directed to maintain the record in Form XVIII in view of Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 [(Directions at serial no. 41 of Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A).
44. Ahlmad is also directed to e-mail an authenticated copy of the award to the insurer as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in WP (Civil) No. 534/2020 titled as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors. on 16.03.2021. Ahlmad shall also e-mail an authenticated copy of the award to Branch Manager, SBI, Rohini Courts for information.
MACT Case No. 171/2019(FIR no. 507/18) Omwati & ors vs Rahul Page no. 17 of 18
45. Ahlmad is further directed to comply with the directions passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in MAC APP No. 10/2021 titled as New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sangeeta Vaid & Ors., date of decision : 06.01.2021 regarding digitisation of the records.
46. Form V and IVB in terms of MCTAP are annexed herewith as Annexure-A.
47. A separate file be prepared for compliance report by the Nazir and put up the same on 03.08.2024.
File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 3rd DAY OF JULY, 2024 (SHIVAJI ANAND) ADJ-1+MACT, NORTH WEST, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI MACT Case No. 171/2019(FIR no. 507/18) Omwati & ors vs Rahul Page no. 18 of 18