Delhi District Court
) Smt. Pridhi Singh Wd/O Late Sh. Rishi ... vs ) Sh. Sheikh Abdul Gaffar S/O Sh. Sheikh ... on 12 April, 2012
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. D.K. MALHOTRA, ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS
JUDGE CUM PRESIDING OFFICER, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
(MACT No. 601/10/07)
1) Smt. Pridhi Singh Wd/o Late Sh. Rishi Pal
2) Ms. Parista D/o Late Sh. Rishi Pal
3) Master Vibhodh S/o Late Sh. Rishi Pal
4) Balwan Singh S/o Sh. Puran Singh
5) Smt. Krishna W/o Sh. Balwan Singh
(Petitioners no. 2 & 3 being minors through their mother and natural
guardian Smt. Pridhi Singh i.e. petitioner no.1)
All resident of Flat no.B-23/5, Vijayta Vihar,
Sector-13, Rohini, Delhi. --------------Petitioners
Versus
1) Sh. Sheikh Abdul Gaffar s/o Sh. Sheikh Sahoor,
R/o 18 Rambha Colony, Choksey Nagar,
Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh.
2) Oriental Insurance Company Limited
Issuing office Bhopal, (MP),
Regional office : 88, Janpat, Connaught Place,
New Delhi. -----------Respondents
Date of institution------27.07.2010
Date of decision---------12.04.2012
(Application u/s 166 and 140 of Motor Vehicles Act
for grant of compensation)
**********************************
JUDGMENT:-
As per averments made in the petition, on 19.06.2009 Sh. Rishi Pal Singh (hereinafter referred to as deceased) aged about 38 years alongwith his nephew Vinay Kumar Dahiya and Amit boarded Shatabdi Express from Delhi to go to Bhopal and during his journey the said Rishi Pal informed his father-in-law to 2 arrange a car for them to go to Indore. His father in law sent the Alto Maruti Car No. MP-OCB 9453 alongwith a driver at Bhopal Station. Since the driver was tired and the said Rishi Pal was expert driver so he decided to drive the vehicle himself. He was following all the rules and regulations of the traffic. One of his nephew Vinay Kumar was sitting on the front seat besides the deceased whereas Amit and the driver Jitender were sitting on the back seat. When the said Maruti car reached 28km ahead from Bhopal at Sihore, one vehicle i. e. Indica DLE bearing no.MP13D4492 was going ahead of the vehicle of deceased. Deceased gave horn to overtake the said vehicle. The driver of said vehicle after continuous horns took his vehicle to some extent of left side and while finding the way, deceased tried to overtake the said vehicle but while overtaking the said vehicle from the right side, the said driver rashly and negligently took his vehicle i. e. Indica DLE towards the right side, as a consequence of which the front portion of the Maruti Alto being driven by deceased struck against the rear portion of the said vehicle. As an impact of the accident the vehicle of the deceased became unbalanced and struck against a tree and deceased suffered injuries over his leg and clavicle. The deceased was pulled out from the said Maruti Alto in a serious condition with the help of his nephew, the accompanying driver and Jitender. A passerby stopped his vehicle and all injured were taken to Hamidia Hospital, Bhopal, where Rishi Pal was declared as "brought dead". Thereafter the driver Jitender and his relatives Kamal Chauhan colluded with vehicle of the other driver and deceased who was wearing a golden chain Tanisque mark weighing about 3 tolas, two rings and one wrist watch and there was also a sum of Rs.12,000/- in cash in the purse of the deceased alongwith ATM Card, Credit Card, Driving Licence and Registration certificates all were taken by the said driver Jitender alongwith his relative Kamal Chauhan in the hospital in presence of doctors. Petitioners could not contact the police immediately as they were busy in last rites of deceased. Thereafter a complaint was lodged with the police and a criminal case was registered against respondent no. 1 vide FIR No. 333/09 in police station Kotwali, Distt. Sihore. It is further averred that accident took place due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the other vehicle 3 i.e. Indica DLE bearing no. MP13D4492, who was going ahead of vehicle driven by the deceased and there was no negligence on the part of the deceased.
Petitioner no. 1 being widow, petitioner no. 2 & 3 being minor daughter and son of the deceased and petitioners no.4 & 5 being parents of the deceased alleged that the deceased was aged about 38 years and was enjoying excellent health. Petitioners have spent a sum of Rs.50,000/- over last rites of the deceased. It is further averred that deceased was a well qualified person and was working as Manager in Intercontinental Enterprises, Cold Storage Private Limited and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. They claimed sum of Rs.45 lakhs as compensation along with interest @ 12% p.a. from respondents no. 1 being owner/driver and respondent no.2 being insurance company of the offending vehicle.
Respondents no. 1 had not filed any written statement despite number of opportunities given and his right to file Written Statement was struck off vide order dated 19.04.2011. Respondent no.2/Insurance Company has filed the written statement admitting that the offending vehicle was insured with it but tried to avoid its liability on various technical grounds.
Petitioners during pendency of the case received interim compensation of Rs. 50,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% from the date of institution under section 140 of Motor Vehicles Act on account of no fault liability vide order dated 19.04.2011.
On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed on 19.04.2011 by my ld. Predecessor:
1). Whether Sh. Rishi Pal died due to road accident on 19.06.2009 in village Lasodia, near Parihar, Indore National Highway bypass Road, Sihore ahead 28km from Bhopal within the jurisdiction of PS Kotwali, Distt. Sihore, MP, due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing 4 no.MP-13D-4492 being driven by respondent no.1 who hit Alto Maruti Car bearing no.MP-OCB-9453 in which the deceased was travelling? OPP
2). Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, to what extent and from which of the respondent? OPP
3). Relief.
In order to prove their case, petitioners i.e. legal heirs of the deceased have examined four witnesses in all i.e. Sh. Hem Raj, MLO Pairvi, Head Quarter, Licensing Authority, Mall road, Delhi as PW-1, Sh. Pawan Jain as PW-2, Eye witness Sh. Vinay Dahiya, nephew of deceased as PW3 and Smt. Pridhi Singh, petitioner no.1 widow of deceased as PW4.
Petitioner no. 1 Sh. Hem Raj, has brought on record the driving licence in the name of deceased Rishi Pal Singh S/o Sh. Balwan Singh bearing no. 92073444, which was issued on 22.03.1992 from Mall Road Authority and was valid upto 21.07.2010. The holder of the said driving licence was authorized to drive motorcycle and car. The photocopy of the driving licence is proved as Ex.PW1/A (Original seen and returned). During cross-examination by counsel for respondent no.2 / insurance company he denied the suggestion that the record brought by him is forged and fabricated. However, he admitted that he has no personal knowledge of the record brought by him.
PW2 Sh. Pawan Jain deposed in the court that he is running a cold storage in the name of M/s Intercontinental Enterprises Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. and he is director of said company. He knew the deceased being employed with his company as Manager since January 2007 till his death. During the period 01.04.2009 to 20.06.2009 he was drawing the salary of Rs.10,000/- per month. He proved certificates signed by him in this regard as Ex.PW2/A, Ex.PW2/B and Ex.PW2/C. He further stated that his company used to obtain the counter signatures of the deceased Rishi Pal Singh on salary vouchers also and the same are 5 collectively exhibited as Ex.PW2/D. During cross-examination by the counsel for insurance company he stated that he is Managing Director the company since 1981 and had issued appointment letter to the deceased. He denied the suggestion that his signatures appeared on Ex.PW2/A, Ex.PW2/B and Ex.PW2/C. PW3 Sh. Vinay Dahiya has filed his evidence by way of affidavit narrating the entire facts as stated in the petition stating that on 19.06.2009 he alongwith his maternal uncle Sh. Rishi Pal Singh and cousin brother Amit boarded Shatabdi Express from Delhi to go to Bhopal and during journey the deceased informed his father-in-law to arrange a car for them to go to Indore. Father in law of deceased sent the Alto Maruti Car No. MP-OCB-9453 alongwith a driver at Bhopal Station. Since the driver was tired and the deceased Rishi Pal was expert driver so he decided to drive the vehicle himself. deceased was following all the rules and regulations of the traffic. PW3 further stated that he was sitting on the front seat besides the deceased whereas Amit and the driver Jitender were sitting on the back seat of the Alto Car. When the said Maruti car reached 28km ahead from Bhopal at Sihore, one vehicle bearing no. MP13D4492 was going ahead of the vehicle of deceased. Deceased gave horn to overtake the said vehicle but the driver of said vehicle after continuous horns took his vehicle to some extent of left side and while finding the way, deceased tried to overtake the said vehicle but while overtaking the said vehicle from the right side, the said driver rashly and negligently took his vehicle towards the right side. As a consequence of which the front portion of the Maruti Alto being driven by deceased struck against the rear portion of the said vehicle. As an impact of the accident the vehicle of the deceased became unbalanced and struck against a tree and turned turtle and deceased suffered injuries over his body. The deceased was pulled out from the said Maruti Alto in a serious condition with our help. A passerby stopped his vehicle and all injured were taken to Hamidia Hospital, Bhopal, where Rishi Pal was declared as "brought dead". The accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of car driver. During cross- examination he stated that he was accompanying the deceased in the car at the 6 time of accident and was sitting at the front side seat. He further deposed that it is two way highway where the accident had taken place. There was also a divider in middle of the road. The accident took place at about 4.45/5.00pm. There were only two vehicles, i. e. their vehicle and the offending vehicle. He suffered only the minor injuries in the said accident. They were going from Bhopal to Indore and have applied the seat belt. The deceased was taken to nearby hospital by passerby vehicle at their request, who was declared dead within one hour after reaching the hospital. He denied the suggestion that no accident had taken place due to the negligent driving of respondent no.1 and he is deposing falsely.
PW4 Smt. Pridhi Singh, petitioner no.1 widow of the deceased deposed in support of her petition reiterated the same facts in her evidence by way of affidavit. She also stated that her father in law was retired from Delhi police. She proved on record her ration card as Ex.PW4/1, testimonials of deceased with respect to his educational qualification as Ex.PW4/2 to Ex.PW19, criminal case record from Ex.PW4/20 to PW4/30. In the cross-examination by counsel for respondent no.2 / insurance company she stated that she is not an eye witness to the accident. She further stated that her deceased husband was working in the cold storage as Manager and was drawing the salary of Rs.10,000/- per month and used to give his entire salary for household expenses. She further deposed that said cold storage company used to provide conveyance charges as well as food expenses to her deceased husband. Her both children were studying in DPS, Indore, MP and her deceased husband was paying a sum of Rs.87,000/- towards their educational expenses per annum and both the children are still studying in the same school at the expenses of her parents. She further deposed that she is a housewife and her deceased husband was only contributor in the family and her in-laws were also dependent upon her deceased husband. She denied the suggestion that deceased was not paying Rs.10,000/- per month to her. She denied the suggestion that her husband was the teetotlar and was not addicted to any vice. She further deposed 7 that employer of her deceased husband has not paid any compensation to them. She denied the suggestion that she is deposing falsely.
Despite opportunities given, respondents have not lead any evidence, therefore, the evidence on behalf of the respondents is treated as closed and the matter was fixed for final arguments.
I have heard counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case. My decision on the above mentioned issues is as under;
ISSUE NO. 1:-
The principles to be followed in the case of motor accident claim have been laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Guwahati in case cited as Renu Bala Paul and Ors. vs. Bani Chakraborty and Ors. 1999 ACJ 634 by Hon'ble Guahati High Court that:
"In deciding a matter Tribunal should bear in mind the caution struck by the Apex Court that a claim before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is neither a criminal case nor a civil case. In a criminal case in order to have conviction, the matter is to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and in a civil case the matter is to be decided on the basis of preponderance of evidence, but in a claim before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, the standard of proof is much below than what is required in a criminal case as well as in a civil case. No doubt before the Tribunal, there must be some material on the basis of which the Tribunal can arrive or decide things necessary to be decided for awarding compensation. But the Tribunal is not expected to take or to adopt the nicety of a civil or of a criminal case. After all, it is a summary inquiry and this is a legislation for the welfare of the society.
N.K.V. Bros (P) Ltd. vs. M.Karumai Ammal & Ors. (1980) 3 SCC 475, Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:-8
"In Road accidents are one of the top killers in our country, especially when truck and bus drivers operate nocturnally. This proverbial recklessness often persuades the courts, as has been observed by us earlier in other cases, to draw an initial presumption in several cases based on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. Accidents Tribunals must take special care to see that innocent victims do not suffer and drivers and owners do not escape liability merely because of some doubt here or some obscurity there. Save in plain cases, culpability must be inferred from the circumstances where it is fairly reasonable. The court should not succumb to niceties, technicalities and mystic maybes. We are emphasizing this aspect because we are often distressed by transport operators getting away with it thanks to judicial laxity, despite the fact that they do not exercise sufficient disciplinary control over the drivers in the matter careful driving. The heavy economic impact of culpable driving of public transport must bring owner and driver to their responsibility to their "neighbour".
Hence the standard of proof though lesser than civil and criminal case, but some evidence is required to brought on record to show that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle. The eye witness has been examined by petitioners as PW-3. He in his affidavit in evidence disclosed how and in which manner accident took place and entirely blamed driver of offending car i. e. Indica DLE in causing the accident. He stated that on 19.06.2009 he alongwith his maternal uncle Sh. Rishi Pal Singh and cousin brother Amit boarded Shatabdi Express from Delhi to go to Bhopal and during journey the deceased informed his father-in-law to arrange a car for them to go to Indore. Father-in-law of deceased sent the Alto Maruti Car No.MP-OCB 9453 alongwith a driver at Bhopal Station. Since the driver was tired and the deceased Rishi Pal was expert driver so he decided to drive the vehicle himself. Deceased was following all the rules and regulations of the traffic. He was sitting on the front seat besides the deceased whereas Amit and the driver Jitender were sitting on the back seat. When the said Maruti car reached 28km ahead from Bhopal at Sihore, one vehicle i. e. Indica DLE bearing no.MP13D4492 was going ahead of vehicle of the deceased. Deceased gave horn to overtake the said vehicle but the driver of said vehicle after continuous horns took his vehicle to some extent to left side and while finding the way, 9 deceased tried to overtake the said vehicle but while overtaking the said vehicle from the right side, the said driver rashly and negligently took his vehicle towards the right side. As a consequence of which the front portion of the Maruti Alto being driven by deceased struck against the rear portion of the said vehicle. As an impact of the accident the vehicle of the deceased became unbalanced and struck against a tree and turned turtled and deceased suffered injuries over his body. The deceased was pulled out from the said Maruti Alto in a serious condition with their help. A passerby stopped his vehicle and all injured were taken to Hamidia Hospital, Bhopal, where Rishi Pal was declared as "brought dead". The accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of car driver. During cross-examination by counsel for insurance company he stated that he was accompanying the deceased in the car at the time of accident and was sitting at the front side seat. He further deposed that it is two way highway where the accident had taken place. There was also a divider in middle of the road. The accident took place at about 4.45/5.00pm. There were only two vehicles, i. e. their vehicle and the offending vehicle. He suffered only minor injuries in the said accident. They are going from Bhopal to Indore and have fastened the seat belts. The deceased was taken to nearby hospital by passerby vehicle at their request, who was declared dead within one our after reaching the hospital. He denied the suggestion that no accident had taken place due to the negligent driving of respondent no.1 and he is deposing falsely. Respondent no.1 has not cross-examined the witness. Nothing adverse could come in the cross-examination of the witness to discard his version. It is not the case of the respondent no.1 that he knew either the petitioner or the IO before hand or that IO has any grudge against him, though he is facing prosecution. There is nothing on record to show that respondent no.1 had lodged any complaint to any higher authority regarding alleged false implication in criminal case. There is also no evidence on record to point out that respondent no.1 had any enmity with deceased or his family members or eye witnesses or investigation officer to create possibility of false implication of respondent no.1 in criminal case. Respondent no.1 did not came forward to cross-examine the eye witness PW3 nor led their own evidence and had 10 chosen to remain out of the court from which it can be presumed that they had no defence and are indirectly admitting all the allegations. Both eye witness and the injured herself have corroborated the story of the accident having being caused by the driver of the offending vehicle by driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. PW1 Hem Raj, MLO Pairvi, Head Quarter has brought on record the driving licence Ex.PW1/A, perusal of which shows that deceased was having a valid driving licence at the time of accident and was very much competent / authorized to drive vehicle as well as car. In view of the above discussions it is crystal clear that accident took place due to the sole negligence on the part of driver by driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and there was no negligence on the part of the deceased. In view of the cross-examination done by counsel for insurance company, since no cross-examination was done by respondents no.1, there is no negligence on the part of deceased. PW1 Hem Raj proved the record of driving licence in the name of deceased which was valid upto 21.07.2010, hence it is proved that driver of the vehicle was having a valid driving licence on the date of accident and was very much competent to drive a vehicle. Respondent no.2 tried to show from the cross-examination of PW3 that accident had not taken place due to the negligent driving of respondent no.1. Merely putting this version on record and not proving the same by any evidence is not sufficient to hold that deceased was driving negligently since they have not lodged any complaint to any higher authority with regard to the same. In view of the above discussions, this issue is decided in favour of petitioners and against the respondents.
ISSUE NO. 2:-
Petitioners are entitled to both pecuniary and non pecuniary damages. Petitioners have led the evidence in the form of widow of deceased namely Mrs. Pridhi Singh and PW2 Sh. Pawan Jain, employer of the deceased. Both of them have stated that at the time of death the income of the deceased was Rs.10,000/- p.m. as per document Ex.PW2/C & Ex.PW2/D (colly.). Deceased during 11 his lifetime was working as Manager with M/s Intercontinental Enterprises Cold Storage Pvt Ltd. In support of his contention PW2 has proved salary certificates issued to deceased signed by him as Ex.PW2/A, Ex.PW2/B and Ex.PW2/C. Though it is disputed by the respondent no.2 but merely putting a suggestion in this regard and not proving the same by any evidence is not sufficient to hold that deceased was not earning Rs.10,000/- per month. Hence, it is proved by leading evidence on record that petitioner had been earning Rs.10,000/- per month. Hence I assess the income of deceased as Rs.10,000/- per month. As far as the factum of petitioners being the legal heirs of deceased is concerned, it is not disputed. They were financially dependent upon the deceased at the time of accident. Since at the time of death the age of deceased is 38 years, so future prospectus of 50% has to be added in his income as per Sarla Verma's decision. Hence the monthly income of deceased comes to Rs.15,000/- (Rs. 10,000 + 50%).
As already discussed above, the age of the deceased was approximately 38 years at the time of his death as per CBSE certificate of the deceased Rishi Pal, which is Ex.PW4/12. Hence in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court given in Pushpa & Others Vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Another reported in 2011 ACJ 2140, multiplier of 16 has to be applied upon the income of the deceased.
Deceased had left behind his wife, one minor daughter, one minor son and his mother and father. It is pertinent to mention here that father of deceased was working in Delhi Police and was retired about 12 years back. He is probably getting pension. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma vs. DTC 2009 (6) SCALE 129 has held that father is generally not treated as dependent upon the son but mother has to be treated as dependent, so accordingly it can be said that four petitioners were dependent upon the deceased at the relevant time. In view of the decision of Sarla Verma's case, the deduction of 1/4th from the salary of deceased has to be made upon his personal expenses. Hence after deducting 1/4 th from monthly income of Rs. 15,000/-, monthly dependency comes to Rs.11,250/- per 12 month. Accordingly, in this case, loss of dependency is assessed at Rs. 21,60,000/-
{(15,000-3750=11250) 11250 x 12 x 16}. Hence the petitioners are only entitled to Rs. 21,60,000/- on account of loss of dependency.
Petitioners have averred that they have spent a sum of Rs.50,000/- over the last rites and rituals of the accused but not brought on record any document regarding the same. It is a judicial noticeable fact that normally some expenses are incurred upon cremation, Chotha or Theharvin ceremonies etc. Hence, I deem it proper to grant lump sum amount of Rs. 10,000/- as funeral charges.
Petitioners are in my view also required to be awarded sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of estate and Petitioner no.1 is also entitled to sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of consortium in view of the decision of Supreme Court given in Sarla Verma's case. I also award a sum of Rs. 40,000/- (Rs.10,000/- each to petitioner no. 1, 2, 3 & 4) towards Loss of love and affection, loss of company, parental guidance and encouragement, trauma and loss of other discomfort after relying upon the judgment of Delhi High Court in case Sajha vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. 2010 ACJ 627. In this regard, Ld. counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgments of Hon'ble High Court in case titled New India Assurance Co. Ltd Vs Kavita & Others reported in 2011 (4) TAC 838 (Del.) and Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Indra Khanna & Ors. reported in 2011 (4) TAC 903 (Del.).
Respondent no. 2 insurance company has failed to bring on record any other evidence to show that the documents of the offending car were not proper or genuine. Insurance company is not able to prove from any evidence that it is entitled to be exonerated and is not liable to pay the compensation amount as ordered by the court. Hence, the respondent no.2 shall be liable to pay the entire compensation amount.
13After considering the merits of the case, petitioners are entitled to get the following total compensation from the respondent no. 2 insurance company :
Pecuniary Damages
a) Funeral charges ======================Rs. 10,000/-
b) Loss of consortium ====================Rs. 10,000/-
c) Loss of dependency=================== Rs. 21,60,000/- Non Pecuniary Damages
a) Loss of love and affection etc.============Rs. 40,000/-
b) Loss of Estate ======================= Rs. 10,000/-
-------------------------------
Total Rs.22,30,000/-
--------------------------------
Since petitioners have already received interim compensation of Rs.50,000/-, so the balance amount left payable is Rs.21,80,000/-. Petitioners shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. on this amount from 27.07.2010 till realization. This issue is decided accordingly in favour of petitioners and against the respondents.
ISSUE NO. 3 (Relief):-
On the basis of findings given above, present petition is disposed off and an award is passed. Respondent no. 2 insurance company is directed to pay within 30 days a sum of Rs. 21,80,000/- to the petitioners along with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from 27.07.2010 till this amount is fully paid.
It is ordered that out of the compensation amount, a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- be deposited in the name of petitioner no. 2 in the form of FDR with State Bank of India, Rohini District Courts, Delhi, till the date of her marriage with a liberty to petitioner no.1 to withdraw quarterly interest through her savings 14 bank account and a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- be deposited in the name of petitioner no. 3 in the form of FDR with State Bank of India, Rohini District Courts, Delhi for the period till he attains majority with a liberty to petitioner no.1 to withdraw quarterly interest through her savings bank account. A sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- be deposited in the name of petitioner no. 5 in the form of FDR with State Bank of India, Rohini District Courts, Delhi for the period of five years with a liberty to withdraw quarterly interest through savings bank account. A sum of Rs. 7,50,000/- be deposited in the name of petitioner no. 1 being widow of deceased, in the form of FDR for a period of 5 years with State Bank of India, Rohini District Courts, Delhi. Remaining compensation amount alongwith accrued interest be deposited in the savings bank account of petitioner no. 1 with the liberty to withdraw an amount of Rs.7,000/- per month for household expenses. Petitioner no. 1 can withdraw quarterly interest of FDRs through savings bank account. It is made clear that none of FDRs shall be encashed without permission of the court. No loan or advance shall be given on these FDRs except with prior permission of court. Respondent no. 2 insurance company is directed to prepare the separate cheques of the compensation amount as per above order. Insurance company is directed to make a payment of Rs.70,000/- + Rs.10,000/- out of pocket expenses by way of cheque in favour of counsel for the petitioner Sh. Sanjeev Mehta-Enrl. no.D160/1985 as per the judgment of Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.R. Midha.
Respondent no.2 insurance company is directed to prepare the separate cheques of the compensation amount as per above order. Copy of this judgment be given to petitioners and counsel for respondent no.2 insurance company for compliance. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open (D.K. MALHOTRA)
Court on 12.04.2012 JUDGE, MACT (OUTER-II)
DELHI