Delhi District Court
Manoj S/O Shri Vikram vs Sh. Bali Ram Yadav @ Balram Yadav on 5 July, 2007
-- 1 --
IN THE COURT OF SH. DILBAG SINGH : PRESIDING
OFFICER : MACT : DELHI
Petitions No. : 163/06, 164/06,
165/06 and 166/06
Date of filing of Petitions : 02.02.2005
Date of conclusion of final : 17.05.2007
arguments/Date of reservation
of judgment
Date of Award : 05. 07.2007
In re:
SUIT NO. 163/06
Manoj S/o Shri Vikram,
R/o D-650, J.J. Colony,
Shiv Vihar, Vikas Nagar,
Uttam Nagar, New Delhi
..... Petitioner
Versus
1 Sh. Bali Ram Yadav @ Balram Yadav,
S/o Shri Lotu Ram,
R/o T-2019, Ashok Pahari,
Faiz Road, Karol Bagh,
New Delhi
Continue.....
-- 2 --
Also at :
Sh. Bali Ram Yadav @ Balram Yadav,
S/o Shri Lotu Ram,
(Yadav Tempo Transport Service)
Near MCD Adarsh Primary School,
Opposite Tanga Stand, Arya Samaj Road,
Karol Bagh, New Delhi.
2 National Insurance Company Ltd.
Divisional Office No. 14,
13/32, Arya Samaj Road,
New Delhi.
...Respondents
SUIT NO. 164/06
Shri Suresh Chander,
S/o Shri Radhey Shyam,
R/o D-658, J.J. Colony,
Shiv Vihar, Vikas Nagar,
Uttam Nagar,
New Delhi.
..... Petitioner
Versus
1 Sh. Bali Ram Yadav @ Balram Yadav,
S/o Shri Lotu Ram,
R/o T-2019, Ashok Pahari,
Faiz Road, Karol Bagh,
New Delhi
Also at :
Sh. Bali Ram Yadav @ Balram Yadav,
S/o Shri Lotu Ram,
(Yadav Tempo Transport Service)
Near MCD Adarsh Primary School,
Opposite Tanga Stand, Arya Samaj Road,
Karol Bagh, New Delhi.
2 National Insurance Company Ltd.
Divisional Office No. 14,
Continue.....
-- 3 --
13/32, Arya Samaj Road,
New Delhi.
...Respondents
SUIT NO. 165/06
Shri Nanhe S/o Shri Radhey Shyam,
R/o D-664, J.J. Colony, Shiv Vihar,
Vikas Nagar, Uttam Nagar,
New Delhi-1100059.
..... Petitioner
Versus
1 Sh. Bali Ram Yadav @ Balram Yadav,
S/o Shri Lotu Ram,
R/o T-2019, Ashok Pahari,
Faiz Road, Karol Bagh,
New Delhi
Also at :
Sh. Bali Ram Yadav @ Balram Yadav,
S/o Shri Lotu Ram,
(Yadav Tempo Transport Service)
Near MCD Adarsh Primary School,
Opposite Tanga Stand, Arya Samaj Road,
Karol Bagh, New Delhi.
2 National Insurance Company Ltd.
Divisional Office No. 14,
13/32, Arya Samaj Road,
New Delhi.
...Respondents
SUIT NO. 166/06
Radhey Shyam S/o Sh. Govind,
Continue.....
-- 4 --
R/o D-650, J.J. Colony, Shiv Vihar,
Vikas Nagar, Uttam Nagar,
New Delhi-1100059.
..... Petitioner
Versus
1 Sh. Bali Ram Yadav @ Balram Yadav,
S/o Shri Lotu Ram,
R/o T-2019, Ashok Pahari,
Faiz Road, Karol Bagh,
New Delhi
Also at :
Sh. Bali Ram Yadav @ Balram Yadav,
S/o Shri Lotu Ram,
(Yadav Tempo Transport Service)
Near MCD Adarsh Primary School,
Opposite Tanga Stand, Arya Samaj Road,
Karol Bagh, New Delhi.
2 National Insurance Company Ltd.
Divisional Office No. 14,
13/32, Arya Samaj Road,
New Delhi.
...Respondents
JUDGEMENT
1 By this common judgment I shall dispose of all the four petitions bearing no. 163/06 to 166/06 u/s 166 & 140 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as amended upto date (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for grant of compensation wherein compensation has been claimed on account of vehicular Continue.....
-- 5 --
accident. Petitions are being disposed of by common award as common questions of facts and law concerning issue of rashness and negligence are involved.
2 Brief facts as made out from the petitions are : On 21.06.2005 at about 4.00 AM petitioners were travelling in Tata 407 bearing no. DL-1L-C-4390. They were coming from their native place to Delhi. Tempo was being driven at a very high speed, rashly, negligently, carelessly and in violation of traffic rules and norms. When the tempo reached opposite Rajasthan Nursing Home, Bhim Nagar, Main Vijay Nagar By-Pass (near petrol pump), District Ghaziabad, it hit a truck which was parked on the side of the road. Petitioners as a result of the accident sustained injuries and were removed to Hospital. FIR No. 276/05 U/s 279/337/338/304A IPC was registered at Police Station Vijay Nagar, Ghaziabad. Respondent no. 1 Sh. Bali Ram Yadav is the owner-insured and respondent no.2 is the insurer.
3 In suit no. 163/06 petitioner Sh. Manoj has given his Continue.....
-- 6 --
age as 26 years. He has pleaded that he is self employed, rickshaw puller earning Rs. 4,500/- per month. He sustained multiple fractures on his ribs, entire right portion of the body abrasion, wounds and grievous injuries. He has spent Rs. 20,000/- on treatment, medicines, conveyance, special diet etc. He has claimed a total compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/-. 4 In suit no. 164/06 petitioner has claimed himself to be 40 years of age, a self employed labour, earning Rs. 4,000/- per month. He has asserted that he sustained severe injuries in his ribs (chest), left shoulder and abrasions. He has spent a sum of Rs. 15,000/- on his treatment, medicines, conveyance, special diet etc. A compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- has been claimed. 5 In suit no. 165/06 petitioner has claimed himself as a eatables hawker, 30 years of age and earning Rs. 4,500/- per month. He has pleaded that he sustained fracture on his left superior pubic ramus, abrasions, wounds and grievous injuries. He has spent a sum of Rs. 15,000/- on treatment, medicines, conveyance, special diet etc. A sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- has been Continue.....
-- 7 --
claimed as total compensation.
6 In suit no. 166/06 petitioner Sh. Radhey Shyam has claimed himself to be 60 years of age, a self employed labour and earning Rs. 4,000/- per month. He has asserted that he sustained severe injuries on his right hand and shoulder in addition to abrasions wounds and other grievous injuries all over his body. He has averred that he has spent a sum of Rs. 15,000/- on treatment, medicines, conveyance, special diet etc. A total compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- has been claimed. 7 Notice of the petitions was given to the respondents who appeared and contested. Respondent no.1 in his written statement has denied the accident. In para-wise reply on merits most of the assertions of the petitioners have been denied on account of absence of knowledge. Fact of FIR having been registered has not been specifically denied. 8 Respondent no. 2 National Insurance Company has taken its statutory objections as contemplated U/s 149 (2) of the Continue.....
-- 8 --
Act concerning breach of terms and conditions of the policy. It has been pleaded that petitioners were travelling in a goods carrying vehicle. That goods carrying vehicle are not authorised to carry passengers and there is a breach of terms and conditions of insurance policy by respondent no. 1. Other objections concerning issuance of notice to Insurance Company providing of driving licence etc. have been taken. In para-wise reply on merits most of the assertions of the petitioner have been controverted on account of absence of knowledge. Fact of tempo being insured in the name of Sh. Bali Ram Yadav vide policy no. 3607/00/31/05/6301365 has been admitted. 9 On 19.01.2007 all the four cases were consolidated and suit no. 163/06 was treated as lead case. The following issues were framed from the pleadings of the parties on the same date :-
1 Whether the petitioners Manoj, Suresh, Chander, Nanhe and Radhey Shyam sustained grievous injuries as per medical record on account of rash and negligent driving of Tata-407 Tempo bearing no. DL-
1L-C-4390 driven by R.1 on 21.06.2005 ?
Continue.....
-- 9 --
2 Whether the petitioners are gratuitous passengers or not ?
3 If the answer of issue no. 1 is in affirmative and of no.
2 in negative, then to what amount of compensation, petitioners are entitled and from whom?
4 Relief.
10 Petitioners in support of their cases have examined PW-1 Sh. Manoj, PW-2 Sh. Nanhe, PW-3 Sh. Radhey Shyam and PW-4 Sh. Suresh Chander. They have proved their examination-in-chief by way of affidavits Ex. PW1/X to Ex. PW4/X. PW-1 has proved his documents as Ex. PW1/1 to PW1/6.
11 Respondents on the other hand have examined Sh. R.S. Mehta, LDC from Transport Department as R2W1 and Sh. Sudhanshu, LDC, STA Branch, Transport Department as R2W2. R2W1 has proved the computer generated record as Ex. R2W1/A and Sh. Sudhanshu has proved the photocopy of the permit as Ex. R2W2/A. Continue.....
-- 10 --
12 Arguments were heard at the bar. Counsel Sh. B.L. Khurana for the petitioners and counsel Sh. M.P. Sahi for the respondent Insurance Company have been heard at length. Counsel Sh. M.P. Sahi has submitted that Insurance Company has no liability in this case as petitioners were travelling as gratuitous passengers. He has also argued that no liability can be fastened on the Insurance Company in view of the breach of terms and conditions of the policy by the insured. Ld. counsel Sh. B.L. Khurana, on the other hand has submitted that the Insurance Company at the maximum can be given recovery rights against Bali Ram Yadav and petitioners being the third party are entitled to claim it from the Insurance Company. Sh. M.P. Sahi has placed his reliance on (1) M.V. Jayadevappa & Anr. Vs. Oriental Fire & General Insurance Company Ltd. reported in I (2005) ACC 472 (SC), (2) Parmod Kumar Agrawal and another Vs. Mushtari Begum and others reported in 2004 ACJ 1903, (3) National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Bommithi Subbhayamma and others reported in 2005 ACJ 721, (4) Malla Prakasarao Vs. Malla Janaki & Ors. reported in I (2006) Continue.....
-- 11 --
ACC 300 (SC), (5) National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ajit Kumar and others reported in 2003 ACJ 1931 and (6) National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kusum Rai and others reported in 2006 ACJ 1336.
13 I have perused the records of the case and considered the submissions. My issue-wise findings are as follows : -
Issue No. 1 14 Petitioners in context of this issue have examined themselves. PW-1 Sh. Manoj in his affidavit Ex. PW1/X has testified that Tata 407 bearing registration no. DL-1L-C-4390 was being driven at a high speed, rashly, negligently, carelessly and in violation of all traffic rules and norms. He has further testified that driver of the tempo was told to drive the tempo carefully and at a normal speed, but of no use. That tempo struck against a stationary truck and caused the accident. PW-2 Continue.....
-- 12 --
Sh. Nanhe has also testified on the similar lines of PW-1. Same is the case with respect to Radhey Shyam, who in Ex. PW3/X has testified in consonance with PW-1 and PW-2. PW-4 Sh. Subhash Chander has also deposed in the similar manner in Ex. PW4/X. The above mentioned witnesses were cross-examined by Ld. counsel for Insurance Company. Respondent no. 1 has failed to avail the opportunity of cross-examining these witnesses as he has remain preferred to exparte. In view of the fact that testimony of PW-1 to PW-4 has gone completely un- challenged and un-controverted concerning rashness and negligence aspect, I have no hesitation to observe that rashness and negligence has been proved by the petitioners. 15 Petitioners have also placed on record the records of the criminal case which reveal that criminal case has been registered against the driver of tempo bearing no. DL-1L-C-4390 at Police Station Vijay Nagar, Sadar, Ghaziabad U/s 279/337/338 IPC. Petitioners have been shown in the list of witnesses, which establishes that they were travelling in the tempo. Respondent no.1 Sh. Bali Ram Yadav has preferred not Continue.....
-- 13 --
to step in the witness box. An adverse inference against him has to be follow. Reliance is placed on New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Dhanesh Kumar and others reported in 1 (1994) ACC 561. In view of the above going discussion issue no.1 is decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents. Suit No. 163/06 Issue No. 3 16 Petitioner, in the petition has averred that he sustained multiple fractures on his ribs, fracture on his entire right portion, abrasions wounds and other grievous injuries all over his body. That he was taken to Rajasthan Nursing Home, Vijay Nagar, Ghaziabad and from there to R.M.L. Hospital and Ganga Ram Hospital. He has also asserted that a sum of Rs. 20,000/- was spent on his treatment, medicines, conveyance and special diet etc. In his affidavit Ex. PW1/X, he has reiterated his assertions of the petition. He has proved his discharge summary of R.M.L. Hospital as Ex. PW1/1 and treatment records with respect to Ganga Ram Hospital as Ex. PW1/2. He has also Continue.....
-- 14 --
stated that he had also got the treatment from private doctors. During cross-examination he admitted that he had no documentary proof of prescription and expenses. He has volunteered that he had misplaced the same. He admitted that he had not lodged any report concerning misplacement of the medical records with the police. He also admitted that he had not made any efforts to get the duplicates of the same. Ex. PW1/1 and PW1/2 are thus the only documents. Ex. PW1/1 shows that petitioner was admitted in the Hospital on 21.06.2005 and was discharged on 22.06.2005. M.L.C. No. 78293 was prepared which has not been placed on record by the petitioner. Case summary reveals that Sh. Manoj had alleged history of R.T.A. He complained of injury over left shoulder and left lower limb. He also complained of un-ability to move left upper and lower limb. No history of loss of consciousness, vomiting or ENT bleed was there. Doctors have opined that Sh. Manoj was conscious and oriented. Nothing was found in the chest and pelvis comparison test. On local examination it was revealed that there was a laceration of 1.5 c.m. size over chin. No painful restricted movements of left thigh and left shoulder were noted.
Continue.....
-- 15 --
No ligature defects as well as nerve vascular defects were found.
17 Ex. PW1/2 reveals that he was x-rayed for lumbo sacral spine AP, lateral and pelvis AP. Reports of x-ray have not been produced by the petitioner. Ex. PW1/1 reveals that he was diagnosed as a soft tissue injury patient. As per M.L.C. bearing no. 34522 injury sustained by Sh. Manoj has been found as simple injury. In view of the fact that petitioner has been only in a position to prove that he suffered simple injury, award of damages has to be proportionate to the same. Simple injury of the nature suffered by the petitioner coupled with the fact that a single bill of Rs. 360/- has been produced, incline me to award a consolidated sum of Rs. 12,000/- to the petitioner, in view of the facts and circumstances discussed above. Suit No. 164/06 Issue No. 3 18 Petitioner, in the petition has testified that he was Continue.....
-- 16 --
taken to Rajasthan Nursing Home, Vijay Nagar, Ghaziabad and thereafter he had got treatment from private doctors. A sum of Rs. 15,000/- is pleaded to have been spent on treatment, medicines, conveyance and special diet etc. It has been pleaded that petitioner on account of injuries shall not be in a position to do his work properly. That all the treatment papers have been misplaced. In affidavit Ex. PW4/X, he has proved the photocopy of OPD Card as Annexure A. No other document is there on the records of the case. Perusal of Annexure A reveals that the same is dated 15.07.2005, whereas accident took place on 21.06.2005. Perusal of Annexure A reveals that no bony injury was found. Even otherwise, examination of 15th of July, 2005 which is from a Government Dispensary, does not entitle the petitioner to high amount of expenses. In his cross- examination he has admitted that he has not lodged any report with respect to misplacement of the treatment papers. He admitted that he has made no efforts to get the duplicates of the same. Perusal of FIR reveals that Sh. Subhash Chander has mentioned about sustaining of injuries by (1) Sh. Hari Ram S/o Radhey Shyam R/o 649, J.J. Colony, Shiv Vihar, Uttam Nagar, Continue.....
-- 17 --
(2) Manoj S/o Sh. Vikram R/o 680, J.J. Colony, Shiv Vihar, Uttam Nagar, (3) Nanhe S/o Sh. Radhey Shyam R/o D-669, J.J. Colony, Shiv Vihar, Uttam Nagar, (4) Balbir S/o Ichha Ram R/o D-649, J.J. Colony, Shiv Vihar, Uttam Nagar, (5) Shiv Kumar R/o D-665, J.J. Colony, Shiv Vihar, Uttam Nagar and (6) Radhey Shyam S/o Gobind R/o D-650, J.J. Colony, Shiv Vihar, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi. The same also reveals that they were admitted in R.M.L. Hospital. In the FIR Sh. Suresh Chand has not mentioned about sustaining of injuries by him. He mentions about admission of other injured persons in R.M.L. Hospital as well as D.D.U. Hospital, but he does not mention about Rajasthan Nursing Home, Vijay Nagar, Ghaziabad in the FIR. All these facts go against the petitioner. However, sustaining of some simple injuries cannot be ruled out completely. Keeping in view the above going discussion I deem it expedient to award a consolidated sum of Rs. 6,000/- to the petitioner. Suit No. 165/06 Issue No. 3
Continue.....
-- 18 --
19 Petitioner in para no. 12 has pleaded that he was taken to Rajasthan Nursing Home, Vijay Nagar, Ghaziabad and thereafter he got treatment from private doctors. That he has spent a sum of Rs. 15,000/- on his treatment, medicines, conveyance and special diet. Like-wise other petitioners he has also testified that all the test reports, medical bills etc. have been misplaced. In his affidavit Ex. PW2/X, he has proved the x-ray report as Ex. PW2/1. He has also asserted that he has spent a sum of Rs. 15,000/- on his treatment, medicines, conveyance and special diet etc. During cross-examination he has deposed on the similar lines of other petitioners to the effect that he has no documentary proof of prescriptions and expenses. He has volunteered that he has misplaced the same. He has also admitted that he has not lodged any report with the police and has not made any efforts to get the duplicates of the medical records. He has also admitted that he has not brought any proof to show that he was earning Rs. 4,500/- per month. 20 In view of the above deposition let a look at Ex. PW2/1 be had. Ex. PW2/1 is the report from Guru Virjanand Continue.....
-- 19 --
Dharmarth Aushadhalya, which shows that the petitioner Nanhe suffered fracture of left superior pubic ramus. As the name itself suggests that the treatment was free and in view of the same the argument of Ld. counsel for Insurance Company that no expenses were incurred towards medical bills carries force. However, the fact of sustaining of grievous injuries stands established. Keeping in view the fact that no other documents have been placed on record and grievous injury has been sustained by Sh. Nanhe, I deem it expedient to award a consolidated sum of Rs. 25,000/-.
Suit No. 166/06 Issue no. 3 21 Petitioner in para no. 11 has asserted that he sustained severe injury on his right hand and shoulder. He has also asserted that he sustained abrasions wounds and other grievous injuries all over his body. In para no. 12 he has testified that he was taken to Rajasthan Nursing Home, Vijay Nagar, Ghaziabad and thereafter he got treatment from private doctors.
Continue.....
-- 20 --
In affidavit Ex. PW3/X, he has testified on the similar lines of his assertions in the petition. In cross-examination on 15.03.2007 he has testified that he has no documentary proof of prescriptions and expenses. On the similar lines of other petitioners he has volunteered that he had misplaced the documentary proof of prescriptions and expenses. He admitted that he had not lodged any report with the police with respect to misplacement of the treatment papers. He admitted that he has made no efforts to get the duplicates of the same. He also admitted that he was not having any proof to show that he was earning Rs. 4,000/- per month. Petitioner in Ex. PW3/X, has not proved any document in support of his assertions made in the affidavit. In FIR Ex. PW1/3, it has been shown that Radhey Shyam had also sustained injuries on his leg and arms. In the absence of documentary proof, it cannot even be said as to what type of injuries were sustained by petitioner Radhey Shyam. Nothing prevented the petitioner from summoning the records from R.M.L. Hospital, as per FIR he got treatment at R.M.L. Hospital. He, instead, in the petition took a plea that he got his treatment from private doctors. This means that the injury Continue.....
-- 21 --
sustained by Radhey Shyam was not grievous and must have been a simple injury. In view of the above going discussion, I deem it expedient to award a consolidated sum of Rs. 6,000/- to the petitioner.
Issue No. 2 22 Insurance Company in this case has proved that petitioners were travelling in a goods vehicle. R2W1 Sh. R.S. Mehta, LDC, MLO Head Quarter, Transport Department, Under Hill Road, Delhi, has proved the computer generated record as Ex. R2W1/A. He has testified that vehicle no. DL-1L-C-4390 is a light goods vehicle i.e. goods vehicle and not a passenger vehicle. He has also testified that the vehicle is commercial one and is supposed to carry goods and not passengers. He has categorically testified that passengers cannot travel in the tempo. Counsel Sh. M.P. Sahi has also tendered the Insurance Policy in evidence. He has also tendered the carbon copy of the notice U/o 12 Rule 8. He has also tendered the concerned postal receipts addressed to Sh. Bali Ram Yadav.
Continue.....
-- 22 --
23 R2W2 Sh. Sudhanshu has proved the permit record of the tempo. He has testified that permit was issued to Sh. Bali Ram Yadav for the period 04.04.2005 to 31.03.2006. He has also testified that the permit was issued for carrying goods only. He has proved record in this regard Ex. R2W2/A. Insurance policy Ex. R2X shows that the policy covers use only under a permit within the meaning of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 or such a carries falling under sub Section 3 of Section 66 of Motor Vehicles Act. Registration certificate of the tempo shows that it is a light goods vehicle. It is no more res-integra that passengers cannot be carried in a goods vehicle. Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satpal Singh's case has been over ruled in Asha Rani's case. Baljeet Kaur's case is also to the same effect. Number of other judgments have also come, wherein it stands mandated that carrying of passengers in a goods vehicle will amount to breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy.
24 Petitioners in the FIR or in the petition have no where testified as to in which capacity they were travelling in the tempo.
Continue.....
-- 23 --
It is not the case of the petitioners that they were travelling as owner of the goods or authorised representative of the owner of the goods. FIR also does not disclose any facts of this nature. Respondent Sh. Bali Ram Yadav has not cared to participate in the proceedings after filing the written statement. In the written statement he has denied the factum of accident itself. In the entire written statement it has not been disclosed as to in which capacity the petitioners were travelling. No specific denial is there of the FIR having been lodged and the assertions in this regard can be said to have been admitted. Non-appearance of Sh. Bali Ram Yadav despite issuance of a notice U/o 12 Rule 8, wherein he was asked to produce his driving licence, insurance policy and permit goes against him. He has preferred not to comply with the same and an adverse inference has to be drawn against him. Respondents have categorically proved that tempo was a goods vehicle. Carrying of passengers is not permitted in the same. Therefore, I have no hitch in observing that Insurance Company has proved the breach of terms and conditions of insurance policy. Therefore, issue no.2 is decided in favour of the Insurance Company.
Continue.....
-- 24 --
25 In view of the issue no.2 having gone in favour of Insurance Company, next question arises is the liability to pay. Sh. M.P. Sahi has argued that Insurance Company is not liable to make any payment in this case as the petitioners were gratuitous passengers and owner be directed to make the payment. He has placed his reliance on (1) M.V. Jayadevappa & Anr. Vs. Oriental Fire & General Insurance Company Ltd. reported in I (2005) ACC 472 (SC), (2) Parmod Kumar Agrawal and another Vs. Mushtari Begum and others reported in 2004 ACJ 1903, (3) National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Bommithi Subbhayamma and others reported in 2005 ACJ 721, (4) Malla Prakasarao Vs. Malla Janaki & Ors. reported in I (2006) ACC 300 (SC), (5) National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ajit Kumar and others reported in 2003 ACJ 1931 and (6) National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kusum Rai and others reported in 2006 ACJ 1336. In view of the mandate of the above mentioned judgments in general and 2006 ACJ 1336 in particular wherein, in para no. 17, it was categorically held that Insurance Company Continue.....
-- 25 --
was required to be exonerated, argument of Ld. counsel for Insurance Company has to be allowed and liability to pay is fastened on the owner. In order to secure the interest of the claimants direction is given to the owner not to sell or part with the possession of the offending tempo. A copy of the order shall be got served on the owner by the claimants forthwith in their interest.
26 Therefore, Awards of Rs. 12,000/- in Suit No. 163/06, Rs. 6,000/- in Suit No. 164/06, Rs. 25,000/- in Suit No. 165/06 and Rs. 6,000/- in Suit No. 166/06 are passed in favour of the petitioners. The petitioners shall also be entitled to interest on the above mentioned amounts at the rate of 7% p.a. w.e.f. date of filing of the petition till realization. In view of the fact that amounts awarded are not much, no direction for keeping the amounts in Fixed Deposit are being given. Respondent no.1 Sh. Bali Ram Yadav is directed to make the payment within a period of thirty days from today, failing which this Tribunal shall be constrained to take harsh steps against the respondent.
Continue.....
-- 26 --
27 Copy of this order be given to parties for necessary compliance.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court Dated 5th of July, 2007.
(DILBAG SINGH) JUDGE, MACT: DELHI Continue.....