Delhi District Court
Sh. Sahil vs Sh. Rajender Singh Taragi on 16 March, 2022
DLCT010090332018
Presented on : 12-07-2018
Registered on : 12-07-2018
Decided on : 16-03-2022
Duration : 03 Years 08 Months
IN THE TRIBUNAL OF PRESIDING OFFICERMACT02,
CENTRAL, TIS HAZARI COURTS DELHI
PRESIDED OVER BY Sh. LOVLEEN
MACT NO. 523/18
SH. SAHIL
S/o Sh. Rajender Singh,
R/o 153132, Jahangir Puri,
Shanjar Pur, N.S.Mandi,
Delhi110033. .......Petitioner
VERSUS
1. SH. RAJENDER SINGH TARAGI
S/o Sh. Bahadur Singh Taragi
R/o C133, Gali No.3, Sant Nagar,
Parwatiya Anchal. Sant Nagar, Burari, Delhi.(Driver).
2. SMT. TANUJA TARAGI
W/o Sh. Rajender Singh Taragi
R/o C133, Gali No.3, Sant Nagar,
Delhi.(Owner)
MACT No. 523/18 Sahil Vs. Rajender Singh & Ors. Page No. 1/24
Digitally signed
by LOVLEEN
Date:
LOVLEEN 2022.03.16
14:03:55
+0530
3. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
Branch Flat No. 408412A, 4th Floor,
Plot No. 21, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi. (Insurer). ......Respondents
The particulars of FormXVII of the Modified Claims Tribunal Agreed Procedure, in terms of directions given by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the judgment titled as 'Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors., FAO No. 842/2003 dated 08.01.2021 are as under:
1. Date of the accident 25.11.2017
2. Date of filing of FormI - First Accident N.A. Report (FAR)
3. Date of delivery of FormII to the victim(s) N.A.
4. Date of receipt of FormIII from the Driver N.A.
5. Date of receipt of FormIV from the Owner N.A.
6. Date of filing of the FormVInterim Accident N.A. Report (IAR)
7. Date of receipt of FormVIA and FormVIB N.A. from the Victim(s)
8. Date of filing of FormVII - Detailed Accident 12/07/2018 Report (DAR)
9. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on No the part of the Investigating Officer? If so, whether any action/ direction warranted?
10. Date of appointment of the Designated Officer Not mentioned MACT No. 523/18 Sahil Vs. Rajender Singh & Ors. Page No. 2/24 Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2022.03.16 14:04:17 +0530by the Insurance Company
11. Whether the Designated Officer of the Insurance No Company submitted his report within 30 days of the DAR?
12. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on No the part of the Designated officer of the Insurance Company? If so, whether any action/ direction warranted?
13. Date of response of the petitioner(s) to the offer N.A. of the Insurance Company.
14. Date of the award 16/03/2022
15. Whether the petitioner (s) was/were directed to Yes open savings bank account(s) near their place of residence?
16. Date of order by which claimant(s) was/were 22/11/2021 directed to open savings bank account(s) near his place of residence and produce PAN Card and Adhaar Card and the direction to the bank not issue any cheque book/debit card to the claimant(s) and make an endorsement to this effect on the passbook.
17. Date on which the claimant(s) produced the 03/12/2021 passbook of their savings bank account near the place of their residence along with the endorsement, PAN Card and Adhaar Card?
MACT No. 523/18 Sahil Vs. Rajender Singh & Ors. Page No. 3/24 Digitally signed by LOVLEENLOVLEEN Date:
2022.03.16 14:04:37 +053018. Permanent Residential Address of the 153132,Jahangir Puri,Shanjar Pur, Claimant(s).
N.S.Mandi, Delhi110033. .
19. Whether the claimant(s) savings bank account(s) Yes is near his place of residence?
20. Whether the claimant(s) was/were examined at Yes the time of passing of the award to ascertain his/their financial condition?
AWARD/JUDGMENT FACTUAL POSITION AND PLEADINGS
1. This DAR was filed on 12.07.2018 by Investigation Officer (IO) before my Ld. Predecessor in the presence of all the parties of this case. The DAR was prepared by IO in respect of a motor vehicular accident which occurred on 25.11.2017 at about 08.15 am at a spot situated near Gopal Pur Red Light ( On the way to ISBT, Delhi) in which the petitioner sustained grievous injuries. As per DAR, the petitioner was riding a motorcycle bearing registration no. DL8SBJ1602 when a car bearing registration no. DL1ZB3655 (hereinafter referred to as "offending vehicle") travelling in the lane to his (petitioner's) right suddenly hit the motorcycle of the petitioner. The petitioner then collided with a petrol MACT No. 523/18 Sahil Vs. Rajender Singh & Ors. Page No. 4/24 Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2022.03.16 14:04:49 +0530tanker moving on his (petitioner's) left and thereafter the offending vehicle also collided with the said petrol tanker. The offending vehicle was stated to be driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver at the relevant time. An FIR no. 489/2017 PS Timar Pur was registered at the instance of the petitioner. R1 is the stated to be driver of the offending vehicle. R2 is stated to be the owner of the offending vehicle and R3 is stated to be the insurer of the offending vehicle. My Ld. Predecessor directed the R 3/insurance company to file a legal offer/reasoned decision in response to the said DAR. R1 and R2 were also directed to file their Written Statements. Petitioner was also directed to file statement of facts in the prescribed Form G.
2. A joint written statement was filed by R1 and R2 wherein they claimed that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the petitioner himself who was riding his motorcycle in a high speed and rash and negligent manner at the relevant time. R1 & R2 explained that R2 was being taken for medical examination in the offending vehicle which was being driven by R1 at the relevant time and when they reached at the spot of accident another I10 Car ( registration number unknown) hit the offending vehicle in its rear leading to the collision of offending vehicle with the petrol tanker. Subsequently, the motorcycle of the petitioner collided with the offending vehicle from behind as the petitioner was riding his motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner. It is further stated that R1 was holding a valid DL at the relevant time and the offending vehicle was MACT No. 523/18 Sahil Vs. Rajender Singh & Ors. Page No. 5/24 Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2022.03.16 14:04:59 +0530 covered by an insurance policy issued by R3/Insurance Company.
3. R3/Insurance Company filed a reasoned decision/written statement wherein it seeks to avoid liability on the ground that R1 was not holding a proper driving license at the relevant time as the offending vehicle is a commercial vehicle. However, it is admitted that at the time of accident the offending vehicle was covered by an insurance policy issued by itself.
ISSUES
4. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed for consideration on 19/12/2018:
1. Whether the petitioner Sh. Sahil suffered injuries in an accident that took place on 25.11.2017 at about 08:15 am involving CAR bearing registration No. DL1ZB3655 driven by the Respondent no. 1 rashly & negligently, owned by the Respondent No. 2 and insured with Respondent No. 3?OPP
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
3. Relief.
EVIDENCE
5. The petitioner examined himself as PW1 in support of his claim. The petitioner filed an affidavit Ex PW1/A wherein he described the MACT No. 523/18 Sahil Vs. Rajender Singh & Ors. Page No. 6/24 Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2022.03.16 14:05:08 +0530occurrence of incident in line with the facts mentioned in Para 1 of this award. He stated to have sustained grievous injuries at the relevant time. He further stated :
(i) that after the accident he was shifted to Sushruta Trauma Centre where he remained admitted till 12/12/2017 and a steel rod was implanted in his right leg after a surgery;
(ii) that he was then referred to Lok Nayak Hospital for plastic surgery where he remained admitted from 13/01/2018 to 29/01/2018;
(iii) that he is still undergoing medical treatment and is not in a position to attend his work from which he was running Rs. 13,000/ per month at the relevant time;
(iv) that he is entitled to compensation of Rs. 25 Lakhs for the injuries sustained in the accident in question;
Petitioner has relied upon the following documents viz: "Copy of Aadhar Card of the petitioner is Ex. PW1/1(OSR);
Copy of election I Card of the petitioner is Ex. PW1/2(OSR);
Copy of PAN Card of the petitioner is Ex.
PW1/3(OSR);
Photographs are Ex. PW1/4 to Ex PW1/13(colly);
MACT No. 523/18 Sahil Vs. Rajender Singh & Ors. Page No. 7/24 Digitally signed by LOVLEEN Date:LOVLEEN 2022.03.16 14:05:20 +0530 Copy of contract letter with NDMC of the petitioner is Ex. PW1/14(OSR);
Mark A is appointment letter of petitioner with NDMC (same is deexhibited viz Ex PW1/15) Medical Treatment Papers are Ex PW1/16 to Ex PW1/24 (OSR);
Copy of intimation to office regarding accident of the petitioner Is Ex PW1/25 (OSR);
Copy of FIR Is Ex PW1/26 & Mark A is the appointment letter with NDMC for one year."
5.1 Petitioner was crossexamined by all the respondents.
6. PE was then closed by the petitioner on 24.09.2019.
7. Respondent No. 1 has examined himself as RW1 and has filed his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. RW1/A. RW1 has reiterated his contentions as to the facts and circumstances surrounding the occurrence of the accident in question, in line with his written statement. He has placed on record following documents : Ex RW1/1 are the photographs Ex RW1/2 is copy of complaint dated 28.11.2017 MACT No. 523/18 Sahil Vs. Rajender Singh & Ors. Page No. 8/24 Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2022.03.16 14:05:31 +0530 He was cross examined only by R3/Insurance Company. 7.1 RE was then closed by R1 on 06/01/2020.
7.2 Respondent No. 2 has examined herself as RW2 and has filed her evidence by way of affidavit Ex. RW2/A. RW2 has also reiterated her contentions as to the facts and circumstances surrounding the occurrence of the accident in question, in line with her written statement. She has relied upon photographs Ex RW1/1 and complaint Ex RW1/2. She was cross examined only by R3/Insurance Company.
7.3 RE was then closed by R2 on 06/01/2020.
7.4 R3/ Insurance Company examined its Proposal Manager Sh. Vikrant Chauhan as R3W1. He deposed that R1 was not holding the 'commercial category' driving license required to drive the offending vehicle. He relied upon the certified copy of the Insurance Policy of offending vehicle Ex.
RW2/R3X(colly)(4 pages) and DL verification report filed alongwith the DAR Ex. R3W1/1. He was crossexamined by the Ld. Counsel for the respondents no. 1 and 2.
7. 8 RE was closed by Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 3/ Insurance Company on 06/01/2020.
MACT No. 523/18 Sahil Vs. Rajender Singh & Ors. Page No. 9/24 Digitally signed by LOVLEENLOVLEEN Date:
2022.03.16 14:05:41 +0530ARGUMENTS AND FINDINGS
8. Oral submissions were advanced by on behalf of all the parties. Written submissions were also filed by all the parties.
9. I have perused the record and my issue wise findings is as under: ISSUE NO.1 "1. Whether the petitioner Sh. Sahil suffered injuries in an accident that took place on 25.11.2017 at about 08:15 am involving CAR bearing registration No. DL1ZB3655 driven by the Respondent no. 1 rashly & negligently, owned by the Respondent No. 2 and insured with Respondent No. 3?OPP
10. 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 MACT No. 523/18 Sahil Vs. Rajender Singh & Ors. Page No. 10/24 Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2022.03.16 14:05:50 +0530 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 No.1082 of 2011) and also recently in another case Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., 2018 Law Suit (SC) 303.
11. As already discussed above, the petitioner examined himself as PW1 in order to prove the factual averments regarding the occurrence of accident. PW1 has clearly and categorically deposed that the offending vehicle, being driven at a high speed and in a rash & negligent manner by R 1, hit his motorcycle from his (petitioner's) right side leading to his (petitioner's) collision with a petrol tanker which was moving on his (petitioner's) left side. PW1 has further deposed that immediately thereafter the offending vehicle also collided with the petrol tanker. During his cross examination he denied all the suggestions of respondents attributing the occurrence of accident to his (petitioner's) own negligence and also denied the suggestions to the effect that he hit his motorcycle in the rear of the offending vehicle.
12. Against the said factual assertions of PW1, the respondents no. 1 & 2 have examined themselves as RW1 and RW2 respectively. Both of them have deposed in unison that the accident in question occurred due to the rashness and negligence of the petitioner himself. Both of them have MACT No. 523/18 Sahil Vs. Rajender Singh & Ors. Page No. 11/24 Digitally signed by LOVLEEN Date: LOVLEEN 2022.03.16 14:06:01 +0530 asserted that at the relevant time the offending vehicle was hit from behind by an unknown I10 Car and due to which the offending vehicle collided with the petrol tanker. Subsequently, the petitioner rammed/ dashed his motorcycle into the rear of the offending vehicle. Both of them claim that had the petitioner driven his motorcycle in a controlled manner, the accident in question would not have taken place. Both of the them have relied upon the photographs of the spot taken immediately after the accident. Both were cross examined only by R3/Insurance Company. Their oral testimony has gone unrebutted and unchallenged qua the petitioner as the petitioner did not bother to cross examine them.
13. Apparently, we have two versions regarding the sequence of the events leading to the accident in question. One version deposed to by petitioner, duly supported by DAR and a chargesheet and the other version deposed to by R1 and R2. It may be noted at the very outset that there is not dispute that three vehicles (i.e Offending vehicle, motorcycle of the petitioner and one petrol tanker) were involved in the accident in question. As per petitioner (PW1), at the relevant time all the three vehicles were moving in the same direction and were travelling adjacently. On the left side was the petrol tanker, in the middle was motorcycle of the petitioner and on the right side was the offending vehicle. As per petitioner (PW1), the offending vehicle hit the motorcycle moving on its left, which then further collided with the petrol tanker and subsequently the offending vehicle also collided with the petrol tanker. Petitioner (PW1) claims that the accident occurred on account of the rashness and negligence of R1. This claim of MACT No. 523/18 Sahil Vs. Rajender Singh & Ors. Page No. 12/24 Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2022.03.16 14:06:12 +0530 petitioner (PW1) has been contested during the course of present enquiry by all the respondents. On the other hand, it is the claim of R1 and R2 that the offending vehicle was firstly hit by an unknown I10 Car leading to the collision of the offending vehicle with the petrol tanker moving on its left. Subsequently, the petitioner dashed his motorcycle into the rear of the offending vehicle. R1 and R2 do not seem to claim that all the three vehicles were travelling adjacently in the same direction. This claim of R1 and R2 has gone unchallenged and unrebutted as the petitioner did not bother to crossexamine either of the said respondents during the course of the present enquiry.
14. So we have two contradictory accounts regarding the sequence of the events leading to the accident in question. As observed earlier, the oral account of petitioner (PW1) has been subjected to crossexamination, but the oral account of R1 and R2 has gone unchallenged and unrebutted. It may be noted that the common ground in both the oral accounts are the photographs of the spot of accident. Petitioner (PW1) has relied upon photographs Ex. PW1/10 and Ex. PW1/11 and R1 and R2 had relied upon photographs Ex. RW1/1. Admittedly, the photographs were taken in the aftermath of the accident in question and parties do not contest the factual position existing on the spot of accident as reflected in the said photographs. Perusal of the said photographs reflect that the offending vehicle was entangled in the body of the petrol tanker near its front right wheel (petrol tanker's front right wheel). Photographs further reflect that motorcycle of the petitioner is lying in a vertical position (front wheel on the road and rear MACT No. 523/18 Sahil Vs. Rajender Singh & Ors. Page No. 13/24 Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2022.03.16 14:06:23 +0530wheel in the air) touching the rear left side of the offending vehicle. The above factual position existing on the spot of accident after the vehicles had come to a rest (after the accident in question) seems to reflect that the motorcycle of the petitioner collided with the rear of the offending vehicle after the offending vehicle had collided with the petrol tanker travelling on the left side of the offending vehicle. Had the motorcycle of the petitioner been moving in the middle of the offending vehicle and the petrol tanker (as claimed during the course of present enquiry), the motorcycle would have been crushed/entangled between the offending vehicle and the petrol tanker. But since the motorcycle of the petitioner is seen/ visible behind the offending vehicle that too in vertical position, this Tribunal is constrained to hold that the rear wheel of the motorcycle got lifted up because the petitioner applied sudden brakes after the offending vehicle had collided with the petrol tanker. The obvious conclusion is that the petitioner was riding his motorcycle at a very high speed and had to apply sudden brakes as he failed to maintain sufficient distance between himself and the vehicles moving in the front. No other reason seems plausible to explain the availability of motorcycle of the petitioner in the rear of the offending vehicle. The above observations are fortified by the mechanical inspection reports of the motorcycle of the petitioner and the offending vehicle. Mechanical inspection report of the motorcycle of the petitioner does not reflect any damage to the left side of the motorcycle corresponding and consequent to the alleged collision of motorcycle with the petrol tanker moving on his left. Rather the mechanical inspection report of offending MACT No. 523/18 Sahil Vs. Rajender Singh & Ors. Page No. 14/24 Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:2022.03.16 14:06:34 +0530
vehicle reflects that the rear portion of the offending vehicle had sustained fresh damages, which coincides with the claim of R1 & R2 that the motorcycle of the petitioner hit the offending vehicle in its rear. The above facts belie the claim of the petitioner and probabilizes the defence raised by R1 & R2.
15. No doubt a chargesheet has been filed against R1 u/s 279/338 IPC, but the same has been filed on the basis of eye witness account of the accident in question given by the petitioner himself and one Sh. Ravi Dutt. This Tribunal has already held in the above paragraphs that the assertions of petitioner as to the sequence of events leading to the accident in question to be unworthy of credit. Perusal of the statement of witness Ravi Dutt recorded u/s 161 CrPC reveals that he is the driver of the petrol tanker involved in the accident in question. He has stated to the police that while he was driving his petrol tanker at the relevant time, he saw the offending vehicle hit the motorcycle of the petitioner leading to the collision of the motorcycle with his tanker. However, surprisingly, the said witness has failed to state anything about the collision of the offending vehicle with his petrol tanker, which fact is very much evident from the photographs of the spot of accident as relied upon by either of the parties. Moreover, this Tribunal fails to understand as to how he could see the accident between the offending vehicle and motorcycle of the petitioner if he was driving his own petrol tanker at the relevant time. Accordingly, this Tribunal does not find it appropriate to fasten liability upon R1 on the basis of statement of Ravi Dutt recorded by the police u/s 161 CrPC during the course of investigation.
MACT No. 523/18 Sahil Vs. Rajender Singh & Ors. Page No. 15/24 Digitally signed by LOVLEENLOVLEEN Date:
2022.03.16 14:06:44 +053016. In the entire facts and circumstances, this Tribunal holds that the petitioner has failed to prove even prima facie that the accident in question took place on account of the wrongful act, neglect or default of R1 while driving the offending vehicle. This issue is accordingly decided against the petitioner and in favour of R1 and R2.
ISSUE NO. 22. Whether the petitioner/ petitioners is entitled to any compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?
17. In view of the observations made in issue no. 1 above, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. This issue is decided against the petitioner.
ISSUE NO.3/RELIEF
18. In view of the observations made under aforesaid Issues no. 1 & 2, no relief is admissible to the petitioner in the present petition. Hence, the present petition stands disposed of.
File be consigned to Record Room. Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2022.03.16 14:06:53 +0530 Announced in the open court (LOVLEEN) on this 16.03.2022 PO: MACT02 (CENTRAL):
DELHI / 16/03/2022 MACT No. 523/18 Sahil Vs. Rajender Singh & Ors. Page No. 16/24 Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:2022.03.16 14:07:00 +0530
Encl: SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN FORM XVI SUMMARY OF THE COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASE
1. Date of accident : 25.11.2017
2. Name of the injured : Sh. Sahil
3. Age of the injured : 26 years
4. Occupation of the injured : Safai Karamchari
5. Income of the injured : NIL
6. Nature of injury : Grievous
7. Medical treatment taken : Sushruta Trauma Centre & Lok Nayak Hospital
8. Period of Hospitalization : 25/11/2017 to 12/12/2017 & 13/01/2018 to 29/01/2018
9. Whether any permanent disability ? If yes, give details : NIL
10. Computation of Compensation MACT No. 523/18 Sahil Vs. Rajender Singh & Ors. Page No. 17/24 Digitally signed by LOVLEEN Date: LOVLEEN 2022.03.16 14:07:11 +0530 S. Heads Awarded by the Tribunal No.
11. Pecuniary Loss (I) Expenditure on NIL treatment
(ii) Expenditure on NIL conveyance
(iii) Expenditure on special NIL diet
(iv) Cost of NIL nursing/attendant
(v) Loss of earning capacity NIL
(vi) Loss of Income NIL MACT No. 523/18 Sahil Vs. Rajender Singh & Ors. Page No. 18/24 Digitally signed by LOVLEEN Date: LOVLEEN 2022.03.16 14:07:21 +0530
(vii) Any other loss which NIL may require any special treatment or aid to the injured for the rest of his life
12. NonPecunicary Loss:
(i) Compensation for NIL
mental and physical
shock
(ii) Pain and suffering NIL
(iii) Loss of amenities of life NIL
(iv) Disfiguration NIL
(v) Loss of marriage NIL
prospects
MACT No. 523/18 Sahil Vs. Rajender Singh & Ors. Page No. 19/24
Digitally
signed by
LOVLEEN
LOVLEEN Date:
2022.03.16
14:07:32
+0530
(vi) Loss of earning, N.A.
inconvenience,
hardships,
disappointment,
frustration, mental
stress, dejectment and
unhappiness in future
life etc.
13. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity:
(I) Percentage of disability NIL
assessed and nature of
disability as permanent
or temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss NIL
of expectation of life
span on account of
disability
NIL
(iii) Percentage of loss of
MACT No. 523/18 Sahil Vs. Rajender Singh & Ors. Page No. 20/24
Digitally signed
by LOVLEEN
LOVLEEN Date: 2022.03.16
14:07:42 +0530
earning capacity in
relation to disability
(iv) Loss of future income - NIL
(Income x% Earning
Capacity x Multiplier)
14. TOTAL NIL
COMPENSATION
15. INTEREST AWARDED NIL
16. Interest amount up to the NIL
date of award
17. Total amount including NIL
interest
18. Award amount released NIL
MACT No. 523/18 Sahil Vs. Rajender Singh & Ors. Page No. 21/24
Digitally signed
by LOVLEEN
LOVLEEN Date:
2022.03.16
14:07:51 +0530
19. Award amount kept in NIL
FDRs
20. Mode of disbursement of NIL
the award amount to the
claimant (s).
21. Next date for NIL
compliance of the
award.
Digitally
signed by
LOVLEEN
LOVLEEN Date:
2022.03.16
14:08:00
+0530
(LOVLEEN)
P.O. MACT (Central02)
Delhi /16.03.2022.
MACT No. 523/18 Sahil Vs. Rajender Singh & Ors. Page No. 22/24
Digitally signed
by LOVLEEN
LOVLEEN Date:
2022.03.16
14:08:08 +0530
CONCLUSION
1. As per award dated 16/03/2022.
2. The present petition stands dismissed. Digitally signed
by LOVLEEN
LOVLEEN Date:
2022.03.16
14:08:34 +0530
(LOVLEEN)
P.O. MACT (Central 02)
Delhi /16/03/2022
MACT No. 523/18 Sahil Vs. Rajender Singh & Ors. Page No. 23/24
Digitally signed
by LOVLEEN
LOVLEEN Date:
2022.03.16
14:08:48 +0530
MACT No. 52318
16/03/2022
Present: None.
Vide my separate award of even date, the present matter stands disposed of.
A copy of this award be sent to the concerned Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate as well as DSLSA as per the provisions of the MODIFIED CLAIM TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE (MCTAP).
Ahlmad is directed to email 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 is further directed to comply with the directions passed by the Hon'be 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.
File be consigned to Record Room, as per rules.
Digitally signed by LOVLEENLOVLEEN Date:
2022.03.16 14:08:58 +0530(LOVLEEN) PO MACT02 (CENTRAL) DELHI/16/03/2022 MACT No. 523/18 Sahil Vs. Rajender Singh & Ors. Page No. 24/24 Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:2022.03.16 14:09:05 +0530