Delhi District Court
Smt. Ruksana vs Furkan on 8 October, 2015
IN THE COURT OF MS. KIRAN BANSAL
P.O. MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL:
NORTH-EAST DISTRICT : KKD COURTS : DELHI
MACT No. 60/11
Unique Case Identification No:- 02402C0034382011
1. Smt. Ruksana
W/o Late Sh. Sakil Ahmad @ Shakeel Ahmed Rangrez aged 28 years (Widow)
2. Rehaaf Anzum
D/o Late Sakil Ahmad @ Shakeel Ahmed Rangrez aged 11 years (Daughter)
3. Reehan
S/o Late Sakil Ahmad @ Shakeel Ahmed Rangrez aged 3 years (Son)
4. Sha Feeq Ahmad
S/o Late Abdul Rzaq Ahmad aged 60 years (Father)
All R/o F-2/648, Block F-2, Sunder Nagari,
Delhi - 110095
Permanent Add:- Kachehri Sarai, Post Office Jalalabad,
Distt. Bijnor, U.P. ...... Petitioners
Versus
1. Furkan
S/o Sh. Mangata
R/o Village Chaukada,
Post Office - Charthawal,
Distt. Muzaffar Nagar, U.P. (Driver)
2. Tarun Sharma
S/o Sh. Devendar Sharma
R/o A-760, Sushant Lok,
Phase-I, Gurgaon, Haryana.
2nd Add: 13/1023, Vasundhra,
Ghaziabad, U.P. - 201005. (Owner)
2. The Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Plot No 60, Okhla Industrial Estate,
Phase - 3, Opp. SBI Bank, New Delhi (Insurance Company)
......... Respondents
i) Date of Institution of Claim Petition : 31/01/2011
ii) Date of Decision : 08/10/2015 APPLICATION U/S 166 & 140 M.V. ACT 1988 FOR GRANT OF COMPENSATION Kiran Bansal P.OMACT (NorthEast) MACT No. 60/11 Page 1/14 AWARD
1. LRs of deceased Sakil Ahmad @ Shakeel Ahmed Rangrez have filed the present claim petition under Sec. 166 & 140 of MV Act stating that on 24/11/2010, deceased was coming to his house from Ghaziabad on his motorcycle no. DL 5SAA 4907 (Pulsar) at a normal speed. When he reached at T-Point Karhera, Mohan Nagar Road and was in process of taking a turn from the side of the Karhera, at that relevant time a truck bearing no. HR 55J 5395 which was being driven by its driver/Respondent No.1 allegedly in a rash & negligent manner, came and hit the motorcycle with a great force due to which the deceased fell down on the road and sustained fatal injury and died on the spot. The FIR No. 1485/2010 u/sec 279/304- A/427 IPC was also registered at P.S Sahibabad, Ghaziabad, U.P. in this respect.
2. Summons of the claim petition were issued to the respondents. Respondent no. 1 and 2 have filed their joint WS denying the factum of accident with the vehicle of the respondents and stated that they have been falsely implicated in the present case.
Respondent no. 3 M/s. Reliance General Insurance Co Ld. has also filed WS. They have not denied that the vehicle bearing No. HR 55 J 5395 was insured with them for the period from 24/08/2010 to 23/08/2011 bearing Policy No. 110000374775.
3. After completion of the pleadings, following issues were framed :
1) Whether deceased Sakil Ahmed @ Shakeel Ahmed Rangrez son of Shafeeq Ahmed died because of injuries sustained in motor accident caused by rash and negligent driving of vehicle Truck bearing registration no. HR 55J 5395 by respondent no. 1 on 24/11/2010, at about 1:30 p.m., Karhera T Point Mohan Nagar, P.S. Sahibabad within the jurisdiction of Police Station Sahibabad, Ghaziabad ? OPP
2) Whether petitioners are entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom ? OPP
3) Relief
4. I have heard the counsels for both the parties and gone through the entire Kiran Bansal P.OMACT (NorthEast) MACT No. 60/11 Page 2/14 evidence on record carefully. Ld. counsel for the Insurance Co. has also filed the WS. WS also perused. My issue wise findings are as below :
5. ISSUE NO. 1Whether deceased Sakil Ahmed @ Shakeel Ahmed Rangrez son of Shafeeq Ahmed died because of injuries sustained in motor accident caused by rash and negligent driving of vehicle Truck bearing registration no. HR 55J 5395 by respondent no. 1 on 24/11/2010, at about 1:30 p.m., Karhera T Point Mohan Nagar, P.S. Sahibabad within the jurisdiction of Police Station Sahibabad, Ghaziabad ? OPP Petitioner no. 1 has examined herself as PW1. However, she is not an eye witness to the incident. Petitioner has examined PW2 Sh. Sonu and PW4 Sh. Saleem @ Javed, eye witnesses and they deposed about the facts of the case. They were cross-examined by respondent no. 1 & 2 and ld. Counsel for Insurance Co. and during their cross-examination nothing has come forward in their testimony to disbelieve the version of PW2 and PW4. Respondent no.1 /driver has not stepped into the witness box to state as to how accident occurred and to depose that he was not at fault and was not driving the vehicle in rash and negligent manner or that no accident occurred with the vehicle of respondent no. 1.
In the written arguments filed by the insurance co., it is stated that there is no negligence on the part of the driver as in para 27 of the petition it is stated that truck came from opposite side and hit the motorcycle of the deceased. However, site plan shows that motorcycle and truck came from the same direction. Even R3W1, IO of the case has deposed that motorcycle and truck came from the same direction and not from the opposite direction. It is stated that as there is contradiction in the content of site plan, petition and version of eyewitnesses the negligence was on the part of the driver of the motorcycle and not on the part of the driver of the truck. It is stated that as per the site plan, the deceased was driving his motorcycle on the extreme left side of the road and subsequently he stopped the motorcycle at the middle of the road at T point. As per the ld. counsel for Insurance Co., motorcyclist Kiran Bansal P.OMACT (NorthEast) MACT No. 60/11 Page 3/14 should not have driven his motorcycle on the extreme left side and then took sharp turn. It is stated that the motorcyclist was completely negligent. Certainly in the petition in para. 27 it has been stated that the truck came from the opposite side. However, the statement of IO R3W1 and statement of eye witnesses PW2 and PW4 clearly established that the truck was not coming from the opposite side but was coming from the same side from where the deceased was coming riding his motorcycle. As far as aspect of taking sharp turn is concerned, IO has not stated so in his testimony. Infact IO in response to court question has clearly stated that both the truck and motorcycle came from the same direction and the motorcyclist stopped due to red light but the truck driver did not stop and hit the motorcycle. He has further stated that point A is the point where he found motorcycle when he reached at the spot and the accident occurred at a distance of approx. 5 feet prior to point A. Infact after the accident it appears that the truck had dragged the motorcycle to some distance and therefore, truck and motorcycle were found at point A but point A is not the point where accident had occurred or where the truck had initially hit the motorcycle of the deceased. Also this aspect that the deceased had taken sharp right turn and therefore, accident had occurred is also not put to the eye witnesses during cross-examination. Even during cross-examination of PW2 i.e eye witness, no such suggestions have been given that it was the deceased who was negligent or had taken a sharp turn. PW4 has denied the suggestion that it was the deceased who was driving the motorcycle negligently and rashly and took turn and that is why accident occurred. Infact, statement of IO R3W1 has clearly established that the deceased on seeing the light turning red had stopped his vehicle and did not jump red light whereas truck which was following the deceased did not stop on the red light and thus, hit the motorcycle of the deceased. The evidence on record as well as site plan clearly establish that both the vehicles were coming from the same direction and therefore, mere averment in the petition that the truck came from the opposite direction cannot be a ground to deny the compensation to Lrs of deceased.
It is also argued by the respondent that as per postmortem report, deceased Kiran Bansal P.OMACT (NorthEast) MACT No. 60/11 Page 4/14 died due to head injury and as per the spot map no helmet was seized from the place of accident and thus, deceased was not wearing helmet at the time of accident and therefore, he had died due to head injury. It is argued that wearing of helmet is mandatory while riding two wheeler on road as per section 129 of MV Act and it is stated that deceased by not wearing protective headgear has not only violated law, but also has negligently contributed to his own death. Ld. counsel for Insurance Co. has also relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Kerala High Court, Siby Paul Vs. Praveen Kumar G.N. And Ors, 2008 KER HC wherein it is held that if a rider gets into an accident and suffers head injury, defence will be available to the insurance company to plead that there is contributory negligence, in as much as the use of helmet would have reduced the impact of the accident which has resulted in head injury for the rider.
However, I have perused the postmortem report of the deceased and in the postmortem report of the deceased there were multiple abrasion on the lower chest, on the left forearm and on the wrist joint. Intestine, peritanum, pleura, pericardium and bladder were lacerated but as far as skull is concerned the observation is NAD (No abnormality detected). There were fractures of L3 and L4 vertibta but no injury is reported on the face or on the head and thus, as there is no injury on the head, even if deceased was not wearing any helmet it would not have contributed to the injuries leading to his death. Moreover, merely because IO has not prepared the seizure memo of helmet, it does not leads to a presumption that deceased was not wearing helmet. No suggestive question as to whether deceased was wearing helmet or not has been put either to IO or eyewitness ie. PW2 and PW4 during their cross-examination. If the counsel for insurance wanted to argue on the aspect of contributory negligence then they should have clearly put this question as to whether deceased was wearing helmet or not to the eyewitnesses and also to the IO R3W1. In the absence of any such evidence on record that the deceased was not wearing any helmet there cannot be any presumption that the deceased was not wearing helmet merely because the IO has not prepared seizure memo.
Kiran Bansal P.OMACT (NorthEast) MACT No. 60/11 Page 5/14 In the present case criminal case record Ex. P4 was filed which includes copy of FIR, Postmortem report, site plan, and mechanical inspection.
Ld. counsel for insurance co. has argued that merely because there is registration of criminal case against the driver of the truck cannot be a ground to hold that the truck driver was negligent.
However, to determine the negligence, I am being guided by the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in 2009 ACJ 287, National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pushpa Rana wherein in the Hon'ble High Court held that in case the petitioner files the certified copy of the criminal record or the criminal record showing the completion of the investigation by the police or the issuance of charge sheet under section 279/304 A IPC or the certified copy of the FIR or in addition the recovery memo and the mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle, these documents are sufficient proof to reach to the conclusion that the driver was negligent. It was further held that the proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act are not akin to the proceedings in a civil suit and hence strict rules of evidence are not required to be followed in this regard. Further, in Kaushnumma Begum and others v/s New India Assurance Company Limited, 2001 ACJ 421 SC, the issue of wrongful act or omission on the part of driver of the motor vehicle involved in the accident has been left to a secondary importance and it was held that, mere use or involvement of motor vehicle in causing bodily injuries or death to a human being or damage to property would made the petition maintainable under section 166 and 140 of the Act. It is also settled law that the term rashness and negligence has to be construed lightly while making a decision on a petition for claim for the same as compared to the word rashness and negligence as finds mention in the Indian Penal Code. This is because the chapter in the Motor Vehicle Act dealing with compensation is a benevolent legislation and not a penal one.
Further the Hon'ble High of Delhi in MAC App. No.200/2012 in case titled as United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vd. Smt. Rinki @ Rinku & Ors decided on 23/07/2012 by Hon'ble Mr. Justice G. P. Mittal, held as under:
Kiran Bansal P.OMACT (NorthEast) MACT No. 60/11 Page 6/14 "The Claims Tribunal was conscious of the fact that negligence is a sine qua non to a Petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988(the Act). It is also true that the proceedings for grant of compensation under the Act are neither governed by the criminal procedures nor are a civil suit. A reference may be made to a judgment of the Supreme Court Bimla Devi and Ors. V Himachal Road Transport Corporation and Ors, (2009) 13 SC 530 where it was held as under:
"15. In a situation of this nature, the Tribunal has rightly taken a holistic view of the matter. It was necessary to be borne in mind that strict proof of any accident caused by a particular bus in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the claimant. The claimants were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied."
Therefore, from the statement of PW2 Sh. Sonu, PW4 Sh. Saleem @ Javed and IO R3W1 and in view of the criminal case record regarding the accident, it is proved that the deceased Sakil Ahmad @ Shakeel Ahmed Rangrez sustained fatal injuries in the accident which occurred on 24/11/2010 due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle bearing no. HR 55J 5395 driven by its driver i.e Respondent no. 1. The issue is decided accordingly.
6. ISSUE NO. 2Whether petitioners are entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom ?
Petitioner no. 1 has examined herself as PW1. She is wife of deceased. Her affidavit is Ex. PW1/A in which she has deposed that deceased was employed in Saudi Arabia with M/s. Naser Ali Al-Ajame General Cont. Est. Build. Maintenance, Broker-Repairing, Al-Ahsa-Hofuf-Al-Haferah-Saudi, Arabia as a Field Manager and was earning SR 6000 per month (a saudi riyal being equivalent to Rs. 12.50) Kiran Bansal P.OMACT (NorthEast) MACT No. 60/11 Page 7/14 equivalent to Rs. 75,000/- per month. PW3 Sh. Hafiz Iqrar Ahmad has been examined to prove the income of the deceased. Photocopy of passport, visa, leave pass and ticket of deceased are exhibited as Ex. PW3/A (colly). Salary Certificate and Withdrawal Voucher of deceased are exhibited as Ex. PW3/C & PW3/D. PW1 has stated in her affidavit that deceased was aged about 35 years old. As per the PAN Card Ex. PW1/2 the date of birth of deceased was 10/11/1965. As per DL Ex. PW1/3 and PW1/4, the date of birth of deceased was 01/01/1972 and as per the passport Ex. PW1/10 the date of birth of deceased was 10/11/1972. As per the election I card Ex. PW1/12, deceased was 38 years as on 01/01/2010 and as per the ration card Ex. PW1/9 the year of birth of deceased is 1965. As per Postmortem report, the age of deceased was 35 years therefore, in view of the above documents, the age of the deceased is taken to be between 41-45 years.
PW3 in his affidavit has stated that the deceased was getting salary of 3000 riyals per month equivalent to Rs. 12/- per riyal amounting to Rs. 36,000/- per month. He has also deposed that he was working in the same company in which deceased was working and the documents which were available with the employer were obtained by him and were filed in the court. Ld. counsel for Insurance Co. has argued that in para. 3 of the affidavit of PW1 it is stated that deceased employed with M/s. Naser Ali, Al Ajame Gen. Cont. Est. Build Maintenance, Broken Reparing, AlAhsaHofuf AlHaferah-Saudi Arabia as Field Manager and during her cross- examination she has affirmed that her husband was employed with the above said company. However, the testimony of PW3 shows that deceased was working with J Hussain Al All Est. as Driver and Labour Supervisor and not as Field Manager. It is thus, argued that that testimony of PW3 is not trust-worthy and the same is liable to be discarded. Ld. counsel for the plaintiff on the other hand has argued that deceased was pardanashi lady and infact it was very difficult for her to procure documents regarding income and employment of deceased from Saudi Arabia where deceased was working and it was with the help of PW3 that she could procure some documents. I find force in the submission of ld. counsel for the plaintiff in as much Kiran Bansal P.OMACT (NorthEast) MACT No. 60/11 Page 8/14 as deceased was working in Saudi Arabia as driver which fact is corroborated by his passport, visa and DL Ex. PW1/4 and for his wife who has never been to Saudi Arabai it would have been really difficult to arrange documents to prove the income and employment of the deceased. However, it is also matter of common knowledge that a person goes to foreign land leaving behind his family and country only for better future prospects and for upliftment of his family from the poverty. In fact as per para. 5 of the petition, deceased was earlier employed with M/s. Hussain Ali Company, (Proprietor of Mohammad Farhan Fahad Aqueel) Head Office: Al-Hofuf, P.O. Box 508-P. Code 31982, C.R. 2054, Tel. 035866023-03-5866156. Al-Hasa Al- Jaffar, as driver and he was again employed with M/s. Samba Financial Group, Cornaishe Branch-Dammam Highway Branch, King Abdulaziz St. - Al-Khaobar, K.S.A. and at the time of his death he was employed with M/s. Naser Ali Al-ajame General Cont. Est. Build. Maintenance, Brocken-repairing, Al-ahsa-Hofuf-Al- Haferah-Saudi, Arabia as a filed Manager. Thus, this fact that the deceased was once employed with M/s. Hussain Ali Company as driver is stated in petition.
The salary certificate Ex. PW3/D and PW1/8 (English Translation of which is filed) shows that the deceased was earning 3000/- Saudi Rial per month. Passport was also issued to deceased in the year 1996 to show that he was working in Saudi Arabia since long. In the absence of any contradictory evidence, the salary of deceased is taken as 3000/- Saudi Rials.
In the judgement Munna Lal Jain and Others Vs. Vipin Kumar Sharma and Others MANU/SC/0640/2015 decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court on 15/05/2015 it has been held that multiplier is to be used with reference to the age of the deceased. It was further held that 50% of the deduction is to be made in case of bachelor. On the aspect of future prospects, it was also held that in case of self employed persons also, if the deceased is below 40 years, there must be addition of 50% to the actual income of the deceased while computing future prospects.
In the judgement passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in MAC APP No. 1140/2011 ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd Vs. Smt. Renu and Kiran Bansal P.OMACT (NorthEast) MACT No. 60/11 Page 9/14 Others decided on 12/03/2015 by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, it has been held that:-
" As far as the second contention of the counsel for the appellant is concerned, I find that Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (supra) was concerned about different Courts in different judgements adopting different percentages of increase in income towards future prospects and held that, as a rule of thumb, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the actual salary income of the deceased towards future prospects should be made for computing compensation on account of future prospects where the deceased had a permanent job and was below 40 years of age. The addition, when the deceased was 40 to 50 years of age was prescribed as of 30% and no addition was prescribed where the deceased was more than 50 years of age. It was further held that where the deceased was self employed, the Courts will usually take only the actual income at the time of death. In Santosh Devi Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. (2012) 6 SCC 421, the Supreme Court found it difficult to fathom any rationale for the observation in Sarla Verma that where the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary without provision for annual increments etc., the Courts will usually take only the actual income at the time of death and held that it cannot be said that the wages or total emoluments / income of a person who is self-employed or is employed on a fixed salary without provision for annual increment etc. would remain the same throughout his life. Judicial notice was taken of the fact that salaries of those employed in private sector had also Kiran Bansal P.OMACT (NorthEast) MACT No. 60/11 Page 10/14 increased manifold and it was held that Sarla Verma could not be held as laying down that there will be no addition in the income of a person who is self-employed or who is paid fixed wages. Thereafter, in Rajesh (supra), Santosh Devi (supra) was held to have made Sarla Verma applicable also to self employed persons or to persons employed on a fixed wages and it was further held that in case of self-employed or persons with fixed wages, in case the deceased was below 40 years, there must be an addition of 50% of the actual income of the deceased while computing future prospects.
It was further observed that, "The counsel for the appellant has also contended that the deceased could not be said to be having a permanent job and for this reason compensation towards future prospects ought not to have been computed on the basis of 50% increase in income. I have wondered as to what can be construed as permanent employment. In common parlance it is only employment with the government or with the public sector which is understood as permanent. However in legal terms, there is no permanency in employment in the government also. Employment even in the government can be brought to an end by the government on account of misconduct, closure of department etc. The same is the position in most of the private sector also. In fact, as has been wisely said, it is only the change which is permanent / constant, else nothing is permanent or constant in this world. I am also unable to take a view that the Supreme Court, by use of the expression "permanent job" in Sarla Verma Kiran Bansal P.OMACT (NorthEast) MACT No. 60/11 Page 11/14 (supra) while laying down the thumb rule for the increase in income to be taken into account for computing compensation on account of future prospects, intended to create two classes of victims of fatal accidents, one government employees and the other private employees. Such a classification would have no rationale / nexus whatsoever to the computation payable on account of a motor accident. Experience of life also shows that often the increases in wages are much higher in the private sector than in the government. The purport of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is to provide just compensation and I am of the opinion that in computing such just compensation no classification as aforesaid can be introduced."
As per dictum laid down in Sarla Verma Vs. DTC , multiplier to be applied is
14. In the present case there are 4 petitioners, the petitioner no. 1 is wife of deceased, petitioner no. 2 is daughter of deceased, petitioner no. 3 is son of deceased and petitioner no. 4 is mother of deceased so, 1/4th is deducted towards personal expenses. Therefore, the total loss of dependency would be calculated as follows :
3000 SR (Per month) X 12 (Annual) X 14 (Multiplier) = SR 5,04,000. 5,04,000 + 1,51,200 SR (30% future prospects) = 6,55,200 - 1,63,800 (1/4 th personal expenses) = 4,91,400 SR In Jiju Kuruvila and Others Vs. Kunjujamma Mohan and Others, 2013 ACJ 2141, it was held that the date of filing of the claim petition is the proper date for fixing the rate of exchange at which foreign currency amount has to be converted into Indian currency (INR).
The exchange rate of SR as on 01/02/2011 is one SR = 12.135 INR 4,91,400 X 12.135 = Rs. 59,63,139 In view of the judgement Kala Devi and Others Vs. Bhagwan Das Chauhan and others, 2014 ACJ 2875, petitioners are also entitled to Rs. 100,000/-
Kiran Bansal P.OMACT (NorthEast) MACT No. 60/11 Page 12/14 for loss of consortium, Rs. 25,000/- for funeral expenses, Rs. 100,000/- to each child for loss of love and affection and Rs. 100,000/- towards loss to estate.
Besides this, petitioners are also entitled for compensation under the following heads:-
Love and affection Rs. 200,000/-
Loss of Consortium Rs. 100,000/-
Loss of Estate Rs. 100,000/-
Funeral expenses Rs. 25,000/-
Total Rs.4,25,000/-
Thus, the total compensation would amount to Rs.63,88,139/-
7. Liability Respondent no.3 is the insurance company which admittedly has issued a valid insurance policy to the offending vehicle. Respondent no.3 being insurance company in its written statement has not denied that there is valid insurance policy issued from from 24/08/2010 to 23/08/2011 bearing Policy No. 110000374775. There is no evidence on behalf of respondent no.3 to show that there was any violation of the rules and terms of policy by the respondents no.1 & 2. Hence, I am of the opinion that respondent no.3 being insurance company is liable to pay the compensation on behalf of respondents no.1 & 2.
8. Relief Award is passed directing Respondent no. 3, M/s Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. to pay to the claimants/petitioners a sum of Rs. 63,88,139/-
(including interim compensation, if any) by way of depositing cross cheques in favour of petitioners in proportions of 50:20:20:10 along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition (i.e.31/01/2011). If award is not complied within 30 days, respondent no. 3 shall pay penal interest @ 12% p.a. for the default period. Upon deposit of award amount, cheques be deposited in any nationalized bank and the bank manager of said bank is directed to prepare FDR of Kiran Bansal P.OMACT (NorthEast) MACT No. 60/11 Page 13/14 the 50% of the award amount as per the share of petitioner no. 1 in her respective name for a period of five years with monthly interest to be credited in her saving bank account and the remaining amount be released to the petitioner no. 1. Share of petitioner no. 2 & 3 be kept in FDR till majority. Branch Manager of the Bank shall also comply with following directions :-
(a) Withdrawal from the aforesaid account shall be permitted to the petitioners after due verification and the bank shall issue photo identity card of petitioners to facilitate identity.
(b) No cheque book be issued to the petitioners without the permission of the court.
(c) The original fixed deposit receipts shall be retained by the bank in the safe custody. However, the original pass book shall be given to the petitioners along with photocopy of the FDRs.
(d) The original fixed deposit receipt shall be handed over to the petitioners on the expiry of the period of the FDRs.
(e) No loan, advance or withdrawal shall be allowed on the said fixed deposit receipts without the permission of the court.
(f) The petitioners shall furnish all the relevant documents for opening of the saving bank account and fixed deposit account to the Branch Manager, any nationalized bank.
9. Put up for compliance on 07/11/2015.
Attested copies of the award be furnished to the concerned parties from court for compliance.
Pronounced in Open Court on (KIRAN BANSAL)
08/10/2015 P.O. MACT(North-East)
KKD Delhi
Kiran Bansal
P.OMACT (NorthEast)
MACT No. 60/11 Page 14/14