Delhi District Court
1 Allan Binny Francis vs . Abhishek Gupta on 11 April, 2012
1 Allan Binny Francis Vs. Abhishek Gupta
Jogender Bagare Vs. Abhishek Gupta
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJIV JAIN : PRESIDING OFFICER : MACT 02
SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
In Suit No. : 83/11
Allan Binny Francis
S/o Sh. Francis Nancy
R/o 419, Sunlight Colony II,
Hari Nagar Ashram,
New Delhi.
In Suit No. : 273/11
Jogender Bagare
S/o Sh. Rambir Bagare
R/o S200/423, Taimoor Nagar,
Pahari No. 1, New Delhi65.
...... Petitioners
Versus
1. Abhishek Gupta
S/o Sh. A. K. Gupta
R/o C75, Sector50,
Noida, U.P. (Driver)
2. Anita Gupta
R/o F371, Nirman Vihar
Delhi. ( Owner)
3. M/s Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd
GE Plaza, Airport Road, Yerwada,
Pune
Suit No. 83/11 and 273/11 1/23
2 Allan Binny Francis Vs. Abhishek Gupta
Jogender Bagare Vs. Abhishek Gupta
4. Lessee Tulip IT Services Ltd
C160, Okhla Indl. Area, PhaseI,
New Delhi.
5. ALD Automotive Pvt. Ltd.
Through Lesee Tulip IT Services Ltd.
......Respondents
Date of Institution : 23.11.2010 ( In petition no. 83/11)
15.11.2011 ( In petition no. 273/11)
Date of reserving of judgment/order : 03.04.2012
Date of pronouncement : 11.04.2012
J U D G M E N T :
1. Vide this common judgment, I shall dispose off the Detailed Accident Report in respect of the case FIR no. 338/10 which has been treated as the claim petition U/s 166 (4) of the Motor Vehicle Act vide order dated 19.03.2011 and the claim petition filed by the injured Joginder under Section 166 and 140 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, as amended upto date (herein after referred to as Act), as the same have emerged out of the road accident which occurred on Suit No. 83/11 and 273/11 2/23 3 Allan Binny Francis Vs. Abhishek Gupta Jogender Bagare Vs. Abhishek Gupta 01.01.2010 at about 11.00 PM near NIFT Hauz Khas, New Delhi whereby the petitioners have claimed compensation for the injuries sustained by them.
2. Adumbrated in brief, the facts leading to the above case are that on 01.01.2010 at about 11.00 PM, the petitioners were going to IIT via Gautam Nagar on a motorcycle bearing no. DL3SAM6161. Allan Binny Francis was driving the motorcycle and Jogender Bagare was the pillion rider. When they reached near NIFT, a Honda Civic car bearing no. DL3CBA1463 came from Siri Fort side at a high speed being driven in rash and negligent manner by respondent no.1 and hit their motorcycle. Both of them fell down and sustained injuries. Allan Binny Francis was removed to JPN Apex Trauma Centre and then shifted to Holy Family Hospital, where his MLC was prepared. Jogender Bagare was also taken to JPN Apex Trauma Centre. Later he was shifted to Sujan Mohinder Hospital. A case was registered vide FIR 338/10 at the police station Hauz Khas. Allan Binny Francis sustained fracture shaft left femur and tibia with fracture 1st & 2nd Metatarsals Right Foot. Jogender Bagare sustained fracture scaphoid. It was stated that the vehicle was owned by respondent no.2 and it was insured with respondent no. 3.
Suit No. 83/11 and 273/11 3/23
4 Allan Binny Francis Vs. Abhishek Gupta Jogender Bagare Vs. Abhishek Gupta
3. Notice of the DAR/petition was given to the respondents.
4. All the respondents contested the petitions and filed their written statements.
It was stated by respondent no. 1 & 2 that the vehicle in question was not involved in the accident nor they were present at the place of accident. It was stated that FIR in the present case was registered after nine months of the incident. Respondent no. 3 also denied its liability stating that there was an inordinate delay of nine months in lodging the FIR and no sufficient cause for delay has been explained. The medical bills are not for the period of hospitalisation. However, it admitted that the vehicle was insured vide policy No. 0G091901180100030089 and it was valid for the period from 10.01.09 to 09.01.10.
5. Both the petitions vide order dated 15.11.11 were clubbed and the petition titled Allan Binny Francis Vs. Abhishek Gupta (DAR) was treated as the main case.
6. From the pleadings following issues were framed vide order dated 19.03.2011: Suit No. 83/11 and 273/11 4/23 5 Allan Binny Francis Vs. Abhishek Gupta Jogender Bagare Vs. Abhishek Gupta
1. Whether the injured sustained injuries in the road accident on 01.01.2010 at NIFT Hauz Khas, New Delhi due to rash and negligent driving by Abhishek Gupta of the offending vehicle No. DL3CBA1463 owned by Anita Gupta and insured with Bajaj Allianz?
2. To what amount of compensation the petitioners are entitled and from whom?
3. Relief.
7. Parties were thereafter, called upon to substantiate their case by leading their evidence.
8. Both the petitioners appeared in the witness box and tendered their affidavits Ex. PW1/X and EX. PW2/Y in evidence wherein they reiterated the facts as stated in the petitions. Allan Binny Francis also filed the copy of the MLC Mark K1, discharge summary Mark K2 and the medical bills Ex. PW1/A (colly.). Jogender Basare filed the documents and photographs Ex. PW2/A. They examined Rajender Singh, Record Clerk from AIIMS Trauma Center as PW3, Sh. Ajay Kumar, Ahlmad from the court of Ms. Monika Saroha, MM, Delhi as PW4 and Sh. Hemant Singh Negi, Record Clerk from Holy Family Hospital as PW5. Respondent no.1 examined Abhishek Gupta as R1W1. Suit No. 83/11 and 273/11 5/23
6 Allan Binny Francis Vs. Abhishek Gupta Jogender Bagare Vs. Abhishek Gupta
9. I have heard the arguments advanced by Sh. R. K. Prasad, Ld. Counsel for petitioners and Ms. Amrita Dhami for the respondent no. 3 and perused the record.
10. My findings on the issues are as under : I S S U E N O. 1
11. It is well settled law that where a 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 has simply to quantify the compensation which is just rational and reasonable on the basis of enquiry. 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. Suit No. 83/11 and 273/11 6/23
7 Allan Binny Francis Vs. Abhishek Gupta Jogender Bagare Vs. Abhishek Gupta
12. Both the petitioners have deposed that on 01.01.2010 at about 11.00 PM, they were going to IIT via Gautam Nagar on a motorcycle bearing no. DL3S AM6161. When they reached near NIFT, a Honda Civic car bearing no. DL3CBA1463 came from Siri Fort side at a high speed being driven in rash and negligent manner by respondent no.1 and hit their motorcycle. Both of them fell down and sustained injuries. They were removed to JPN Apex Trauma Centre by PCR. R1W1 also tendered his affidavit Ex.R1W1/A and stated that he was the driver of the vehicle in question. His vehicle was insured and he had a valid license to drive the vehicle. He placed on record the insurance policy and the license. He stated that the DAR is after thought. He denied that he was driving the car recklessly or at a fast speed leading to the accident. He admitted that he did not have enemity with the police or the I.O and does not know how he was implicated. In this case a Detailed Accident Report was filed by the SHO after registration of the case vide FIR no. 338/10. Alongwith the report he filed the charge sheet U/s 173 Cr.P.C., information given by Allan Binny Francis to the police regarding the accident, FIR, site plan, medico legal documents of the petitioners, insurance policy, mechanical inspection report of the motorcycle, arrest memo of respondent no.1, vehicle details, driving license details of the Suit No. 83/11 and 273/11 7/23 8 Allan Binny Francis Vs. Abhishek Gupta Jogender Bagare Vs. Abhishek Gupta petitioner and respondent no.1 etc. On its perusal, I find that Allan Binny Francis reported the matter to the police on 20.10.10. He had stated that on 01.01.10 at about 11.00 PM he with Jogender was going on the motorcycle to IIT. Near NIFT, Honda Civic car came from front from the side of Siri Fort and hit his motorcycle. PCR took him to Trauma Center, AIIMS. From there he went to Holy Family Hospital with his brother. On the next day the car driver came at the hospital and promised to bear all the expenses of his treatment requesting him not to lodge FIR. Since he was in pain he could not report the matter to the police. He stated that Abhishek did not bear his expenses which made him lodge the report. He had stated that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Honda Civic car DL 3C BA 1463. The site plan shows that the accident took place at point A near the crossing. On the MLC prepared at Holy Family hospital, history of road traffic accident has been recorded. Allan Binny Francis was admitted in the hospital on 02.01.10 i.e. on the next day of accident. He had explained the doctor how and where the accident took place. I do not find substance in the argument / submission of respondent no.3 that there was an inordinate delay of nine months in lodging the FIR and no sufficient cause for delay has been explained. The case was registered after about 20 days of the incident. Suit No. 83/11 and 273/11 8/23
9 Allan Binny Francis Vs. Abhishek Gupta Jogender Bagare Vs. Abhishek Gupta PW1 has explained that the respondent no.1 had come to him and promised to bear all his expenses asking not to lodge report. He stated that because of the promise made by respondent no.1 he did not lodge the report. Even otherwise, in the MLC prepared at Holy Family hospital factum and place of accident has been recorded. So, it cannot be said that the petitioners concocted the story to falsely involve the respondent no.1 to claim compensation. The mechanical inspection report of the vehicle shows that there were fresh damages on the motorcycle. Both the witnesses have categorically denied that no accident of this sort ever took place. They had stated that they were taken to the hospital by the PCR. Though both the witnesses were crossexamined at length but nothing favouring the respondents came from their mouth to draw an inference that the car bearing no. DL 3C BA 1463 was not involved in the accident or the accident did not place due to the rash and negligent driving of the aforesaid car by respondent no.1. It is also to be noted that the petitioners have examined PW3 who brought the record of the petitioner Jogender. He has stated that Jogender was brought at AIIMS Trauma Center after the accident on 01.01.10 at 2349 hrs. His testimony remained unrebutted. On the MLC Ex.PW3/A history of road traffic accident has been recorded. There is nothing in the Suit No. 83/11 and 273/11 9/23 10 Allan Binny Francis Vs. Abhishek Gupta Jogender Bagare Vs. Abhishek Gupta evidence of PW1 and PW2 to indicate that they knew the respondent no.1 from before or were interested in their false implication. Viewed thereof, the delay in registration of the case does not prove fatal to the case of the petitioners. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled ''National Insurance Company Limited V/s Pushpa Rana'' reported as 2009 ACJ 287 has held that whenever criminal proceedings are placed on record on completion of investigation by the police, then that in itself is sufficient proof of the negligent driving of driver of the offending vehicle involved in the accident.
13. It is therefore, established that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Honda City Civic car bearing no. DL3CBA1463 by respondent no. 1. It has come on record that the offending vehicle belonged to respondent no. 2 and it was insured with respondent no. 3.
14. Issue no.1 is accordingly decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
I S S U E No. 2
15. The petitioners have claimed compensation in respect of the injuries sustained by them. In a road accident a person is entitled to compensation for the pecuniary and nonpecuniary damages. Suit No. 83/11 and 273/11 10/23
11 Allan Binny Francis Vs. Abhishek Gupta Jogender Bagare Vs. Abhishek Gupta
16. 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 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."
Suit No. 83/11 and 273/11 11/23
12 Allan Binny Francis Vs. Abhishek Gupta Jogender Bagare Vs. Abhishek Gupta COMPENSATION FOR EXPENSES INCURRED ON MEDICAL TREATMENT :
In Petition No. 83/11
17. PW1 has stated that due to accident he sustained fracture shaft left femur and tibia with fracture 1st & 2nd Metatarsals Right Foot. He was taken to JPN Apex Trauma Center and then to Holy Family Hospital. He placed on record the MLC Mark K1 on which the doctor has opined the injuries grievous. As per OPD card, his treatment continued till 09.01.10. He has filed the medical bills of Rs. 88,783.22. He has 45% permanent disability in relation to his left lower limb. Looking into the injuries and treatment he underwent, I am of the view that he might have spent much more. I therefore, award Rs. 90,000/ to the petitioner on account of medical expenses.
In Petition No. 273/11
18. As per discharge summary, he had fracture scaphoid. He was taken to JPN Apex Trauma Center and then to Sujan Mohinder Hospital. He was discharged on 04.01.10. He placed on record the MLC. He was advised medicine, physiotherapy and further follow up. He has placed on record documents in respect of his medical treatment and the bills for Rs. 9145.85 Suit No. 83/11 and 273/11 12/23
13 Allan Binny Francis Vs. Abhishek Gupta Jogender Bagare Vs. Abhishek Gupta Looking into the injuries I am of the opinion that he might have spent much more. I therefore, award a sum of Rs. 10,000 / on account of medical expenses.
COMPENSATION FOR PAIN AND SUFFERINGS AND ENJOYMENT OF LIFE :
In Petition No. 83/11
19. PW1 has stated that due to accident he sustained fracture shaft left femur and tibia with fracture 1st & 2nd Metatarsals Right Foot. As per OPD card, his treatment continued till 09.01.10. He has 45% permanent disability in relation to his left lower limb. The injuries had given him lot of pain and agony. Taking into consideration their injuries and all the facts, I award a sum of Rs.
30,000/ to Allan Binny Fransis towards pain and suffering and enjoyment of life.
In Petition No. 273/11
20. PW1 has stated that due to accident he had fracture scaphoid. As per discharge summary, his treatment continued till 04.01.10. The injuries had given them lot of pain and agony. Taking into consideration his injuries and Suit No. 83/11 and 273/11 13/23 14 Allan Binny Francis Vs. Abhishek Gupta Jogender Bagare Vs. Abhishek Gupta all the facts, I award a sum of Rs. 20,000/ to Jogender Bagare towards pain and suffering and enjoyment of life.
COMPENSATION FOR SPECIAL DIET, ATTENDANT CHARGES AND CONVEYANCE CHARGES :
In Petition No. 83/11 and 273/11
21. Petitioners have stated that due to accident they sustained multiple injuries.
They went to the hospital as an OPD patients. The injuries on their persons were grievous in nature. They were advised rich diet and protein for early recovery. In the present case their injuries were such that they might have taken the help of attendant in their day to day work. Taking into consideration all these facts, I award a sum of Rs. 20,000/ to the petitioner Allian Binny Fransis (Petition no. 83/11) and Rs. 10,000/ to petitioner Jogender Bagare (Petition no. 273/11) on account of special diet, conveyance and attendant charges.
In Petition No. 83/11 COMPENSATION FOR LOSS OF INCOME/ FUTURE LOSS OF INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF DISABILITY :
Suit No. 83/11 and 273/11 14/23
15 Allan Binny Francis Vs. Abhishek Gupta Jogender Bagare Vs. Abhishek Gupta
22. The petitioner was 25 years of age at the time of accident. He has stated that he was of sound physique and used to earn Rs. 10,500/. After the accident he lost the job and became incapable to seek another job. Ld. counsel stated that the petitioner was the incharge of a bakery shop at New Friends Colony where he worked for 45 years however, after the accident he has been sitting at home. He walks with a stick and has 45% permanent disability in relation to left lower limb.
In this case the petitioner did not file any document as to his employment or salary or educational qualification. He did not call his employer to prove his job or the income. In the absence of any document/evidence, salary of a nonmatriculate is taken for calculating the loss of income which as per the Schedule was Rs. 5,850/ p.m. at the time of accident. Looking into the injuries and the treatment he underwent, I take a period of six months he remained bed ridden, his loss of income is calculated 6 x 5,850 = 35,100/ which is rounded off to Rs. 36,000/ . I therefore award Rs. 36,000/ as loss of income. As per disability certificate, he has 45% permanent disability in relation to his left lower limb. He is 25 years of age. Considering the nature of injuries suffered and the work he had been doing, his functional disability for calculating of loss of income is taken Suit No. 83/11 and 273/11 15/23 16 Allan Binny Francis Vs. Abhishek Gupta Jogender Bagare Vs. Abhishek Gupta as 25%. Taking a multiplier of '18', the loss of income is calculated as 5850 x 12 x 18 x 25% = Rs. 3,15,900/ which is rounded off to Rs. 3,16,000/. I therefore award a sum of Rs. 3,16,000/ to the petitioner towards future loss of income on account of permanent disability. In Petition No. 273/11
23. The petitioner has stated that he was 20 years of age. He used to earn Rs.
4,000/ p.m. from his job. However, in the present case he did not file any document as to his income or qualification. Looking into his injuries, I take a period of three months he remained bed ridden on account of injury and wages for non matriculate as on the date of accident i.e Rs. 5,850/ per month, the loss of income is calculated as 5,850 x 3 = 17,550/ which is rounded off to Rs. 18,000/. I therefore award Rs. 18,000/ to the petitioner as loss of income.
COMPENSATION FOR LOSS OF AMENITIES & MARRIAGE PROSPECTS.
In Petition No. 83/11
24. The petitioner was 25 years of age at the time of accident. Due to the Suit No. 83/11 and 273/11 16/23 17 Allan Binny Francis Vs. Abhishek Gupta Jogender Bagare Vs. Abhishek Gupta permanent disability,he would not be able to participate in the normal activities of his daily life to pursue his talents, recreation interest, hobbies and evocations. Looking into his age, injuries and facts and circumstances of the case, I award a sum of Rs. 25,000/ towards loss of amenities and Rs. 25,000/ towards loss of marriage prospects to petitioner Allan Binny Francis.
25. Thus, the total compensation awarded in favour of the petitioners is assessed as under : Petition No. 83/11 273/11 Medical Expenses : Rs. 90,000/ 10,000/ Pain and Sufferings & Enjoyment of Life : Rs. 30,000/ 20,000/ Special Diet, Attendant & Conveyance : Rs. 20,000/ 10,000/ Loss of Income : Rs. 36,000/ 18,000/ Loss of Future Income : Rs. 3,16,000/ Loss of Amenities & Marriage Prospects : Rs. 50,000/ =========== ======= TOTAL : Rs. 5,42,000/ 58,000/ =========== ======= Suit No. 83/11 and 273/11 17/23 18 Allan Binny Francis Vs. Abhishek Gupta Jogender Bagare Vs. Abhishek Gupta L I A B I L I T Y
26. As the offending vehicle was being driven by respondent no.1, therefore primary liability to compensate the petitioners is that of respondent no.1. The offending vehicle was owned by respondent no.2, therefore, she becomes vicariously liable to compensate the petitioners. The offending vehicle was insured with respondent no.3, therefore, respondent no.3 becomes contractually liable to compensate the petitioners for the above mentioned amount to the extent of liability of the insured.
In the instant case no evidence has been brought by the Insurance Company to show that there was any breach of insurance policy by the respondent no.2 or respondent no.1 was not having the Driving License. Thus, I am of the view that Respondent no. 3 is liable to pay compensation to the petitioners for the above awarded amount.
27. Issue no. 2 is accordingly decided in favour of the petitioners.
R E L I E F
28. In view of my findings I award a sum of Rs. 5,42,000/ in favour of petitioner Allan Binny Francis (Petition No. 83/11) and Rs. 58,000/ to the petitioner Suit No. 83/11 and 273/11 18/23 19 Allan Binny Francis Vs. Abhishek Gupta Jogender Bagare Vs. Abhishek Gupta Jogender Bagare (Petition No. 273/11) as compensation alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of its realization.
29. Out of this awarded amount, a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/ (in Petition No. 83/11) be kept by the State Bank of India, Saket Courts, New Delhi in the form of "Fixed Deposit" for a period of four years.
Deposition of awarded amount with STATE BANK OF INDIA, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi.
(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 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 Suit No. 83/11 and 273/11 19/23 20 Allan Binny Francis Vs. Abhishek Gupta Jogender Bagare Vs. Abhishek Gupta 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.
(ix) 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, New Delhi.
30. Respondent no.3, is directed to pay the awarded amount by way of cheque in favour of the petitioners, to be deposited in this Tribunal, within a period of 40 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).
Suit No. 83/11 and 273/11 20/23
21 Allan Binny Francis Vs. Abhishek Gupta Jogender Bagare Vs. Abhishek Gupta
31. Copy of this Judgment be given to the parties for compliance.
32. Nazir attached to the Tribunal of undersigned is directed to issue notice to the petitioners immediately on deposit of the cheque of the awarded amount by the Insurance Company in this Tribunal so as to facilitate them to get the same released.
33. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court
on 11th Day of April, 2012 (SANJIV JAIN )
Presiding Officer : MACT02
South Distt. : Saket Courts
New Delhi : 11.04.2012
Suit No. 83/11 and 273/11 21/23
22 Allan Binny Francis Vs. Abhishek Gupta
Jogender Bagare Vs. Abhishek Gupta
Allan Binny Francis Vs. Abhishek Gupta
Suit No. 83/11
11.04.2012
Present : None.
Vide separate order of even date both the petitions i.e. petition no. 83/11 and 273/11 have been disposed off. Main judgment be placed in file titled "Allan Binny Francis Vs. Abhishek Gupta (Petition no. 83/11)" and copy be placed in the other file Copy of the award be given to the parties.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(SANJIV JAIN ) Presiding Officer : MACT02 South Distt. : Saket Courts New Delhi : 11.04.2012 Suit No. 83/11 and 273/11 22/23 23 Allan Binny Francis Vs. Abhishek Gupta Jogender Bagare Vs. Abhishek Gupta Jogender Bagare Vs. Abhishek Gupta Suit No. 83/11 11.04.2012 Present : None.
Vide separate order of even date both the petitions i.e. petition no. 83/11 and 273/11 have been disposed off. Main judgment be placed in file titled "Allan Binny Francis Vs. Abhishek Gupta (Petition no. 83/11)" and copy be placed in the other file Copy of the award be given to the parties.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(SANJIV JAIN ) Presiding Officer : MACT02 South Distt. : Saket Courts New Delhi : 11.04.2012 Suit No. 83/11 and 273/11 23/23