Delhi District Court
Kavita @ Savita Roy vs . Shamim Ahmed And Ors on 17 January, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SHRI ATUL KUMAR GARG :
PRESIDING OFFICER : MACT : SOUTH DISTT. : SAKET
COURTS : NEW DELHI
PETITION NO. : 213/19
KAVITA @ SAVITA ROY VS. SHAMIM AHMED AND ORS
FIR NO. 147/18, U/Sec. 279/338 IPC AND 3/181 M.V. ACT,
PS FATEHPUR BERI
Kavita @ Savita Roy
D/o Sh. Satrugan Roy
R/o H.No. 19, Jonapur, Jonapur,
South Delhi,
Delhi - 110047 ..... Petitioner
Versus
1. Shamim Ahmad
S/o Sh. Hasham Khan
R/o Vill & PO Umra,
PS Nagina,
District Nuh (Haryana .. (Driver cum owner)
2. HDFC ERGO General Insurance Co. Ltd.
New Delhi.
..... Insurance Company
..... Respondents
Date of Institution : 01.05.2019
Date of reserving of judgment/
order : 17.01.2023
Date of pronouncement : 17.01.2023
JUDGMENT:
1. This order shall dispose off the detail accident report MACT No. 213/19 Kavita @ Savita Roy vs. Shamim Ahmed and Ors. Page No. 1 of 20 (hereinafter referred as DAR) filed by PS Fatehpur Beri for seeking compensation in regard to the injury sustained to the claimants Kavita @ Savita Roy and Priya Kumari in a road accident which was occurred on 23.04.2018.
2. It is pertinent to mention here that vide order dated 01.05.2019, the claim of the injured Priya Kumari is dismissed as not pressed for.
3. The facts of the present case do not need any big canvass :-
"On 23.04.2018 the injured was coming to her house in a Ola Cab bearing no. HR-74A-4972 (Maruti Swift Dzire) and the driver of the said Ola Cab was plying the said cab in a rash and negligent manner. When they reached Mandi Jaunapur Road, Near royal Farm, New Delhi, the driver of the offending vehicle overtake his vehicle in a high speed and the said vehicle came in right side of the road and in the meantime another swift car came from front side alongwith some passengers hit forcefully and due to forceful impact the deponent received grievous injuries a per MLC and she became unconscious. She suffered 20% permanent physical impairment in relation to her left lower limb.
4. The respondent no. 1 states in his written statement that the car of the respondent was hit by another car registration number HR-55W-7122 Swift Dezire on 23.04.2018 at around 9.30 PM near Royal Farm House, Mandi Road, New Delhi which was coming from Jaunapur side and both the cars were burnt in fire. The accident had occurred due to the negligence of the MACT No. 213/19 Kavita @ Savita Roy vs. Shamim Ahmed and Ors. Page No. 2 of 20 driver of the aforesaid car which was being driven rashly and negligently and on the wrong side of the road. In absence of the driver, owner and insurance company of the aforesaid vehicle bearing no. HR-55W-7122 liability can not be ascertained for payment of compensation to the claimant. FIR was registered on 28.04.2018 i.e. after 6 days of the accident.
5. Legal offer has been filed by the respondent no. 2/insurance company, however the same was not accepted by the petitioner.
6. After completion of the proceedings vide order dated 08.12.2020 following issues have been framed:-
1. Whether, the petitioner namely Kavita @ Savita sustained injuries in a road accident on 23.04.2018 at about 9.30 PM at Mandi Jonapur Road, Near Royal Farm, New Delhi due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing no. HR-74A-4972 being driven and owned by respondent no.1 and insured with respondent no. 2?...OPP.
2. To what amount of compensation the petitioner is entitled and from whom? OPP
3. Relief.
7. In order to prove its contention, the petitioner examined herself as PW1. He deposed that on 23.04.2018 she was coming to her house in a Ola Cab bearing no. HR-74A-4972 (Maruti Swift Dzire) and the driver of the said Ola Cab was plying the said cab in a rash and negligent manner. She directed the driver to drive the said vehicle with carefully as well as by obeying the MACT No. 213/19 Kavita @ Savita Roy vs. Shamim Ahmed and Ors. Page No. 3 of 20 traffic rules and regulations, the said driver ply the said offending vehicle normally few times but thereafter the driver of said offending vehicle plying in a rash and negligent with a high speed. At about 9.30 PM, when they reached Mandi Jaunapur Road, Near Royal Farm, New Delhi the driver of the offending vehicle overtake his vehicle in a high speed and the said vehicle came in right side of the road, in the meantime another swift car came from front side alongwith some passengers, hit forcefully and due to forceful impact the deponent received grievous injuries and became unconscious. She was shifted the deponent in an Ambulance and the deponent also saw that both the vehicles/ cars were burned. The ambulance took the deponent to JPN Apex Trauma Centre, AIIMS Hospital, New Delhi and her MLC was prepared by the doctor in the said hospital. She remained in the hospital since 23.04.2018 to 08.05.2018. After discharge from JPN Apex Trauma Centre, AIIMS Hospital the deponent took treatment from other hospital as a outdoor patient upto six months. It is further deposed that the deponent was doing private job in Kothi NO. D1-1196, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi and was getting salary Rs.18000/- per month. She was relied upon the following documents:-
• Medical treatment record Ex.PW1/1
• Medical Bills Ex.PW1/2.
• Copy of Aadhar card Ex.PW1/3.
• Copy of disability certificate Ex.PW1/4.
• DAR Ex.PW1/5.
During cross examination, witness has deposed that MACT No. 213/19 Kavita @ Savita Roy vs. Shamim Ahmed and Ors. Page No. 4 of 20 she boarded the cab 4972 at about 9.00 pm, the driver was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. She requested the driver of the cab to drive as per rules, in a proper manner about 2-3 times. She admits that she was never admitted in the hospital after 08.05.2018. She states that she was engaged in the job of baby care. She has not filed any document to show her income or avocation.
8. The respondent no. 1 examined himself as R1W1 and deposed that his car was hit by another car bearing no. HR-55W-
7122 Swift Dezire on 23.04.2018 at around 9.30 PM near Royal Farm House, Mandi Road, New Delhi which was coming from Jaunapur side and both the cars were burnt in fire. It is submitted that the accident had occurred due to negligence of the driver of aforesaid car which was being driven rashly and negligently and coming on the wrong side of the road. However, the driver, owner and insurance company of the aforesaid car bearing no. HR-55W-7122 have not been made party in the present case. In the absence of the driver, owner and insurance company of the vehicle bearing no. HR-55W-7122 liability cannot be ascertained for payment of compensation to the claimant, and as such the petition suffers from the defect of non-joinder of necessary parties as the driver, owner and insurance company of the vehicle registration no. HR-55W-7122 as mentioned in the accident report. The accident had occurred on 23.04.2018 and the FIR was registered on 28.04.2018 i.e. 6 days of the accident wherein the deponent was falsely implicated as the accused, whereas the MACT No. 213/19 Kavita @ Savita Roy vs. Shamim Ahmed and Ors. Page No. 5 of 20 accident was occurred due to the negligence of the aforesaid car bearing no. HR-55W-7122. It is submitted that the deponent was having valid driving licence no. UP-8020050019362 on the date of accident and the original license was kept in the car which was burnt in the fire, however a photocopy of the same was provided by the deponent to the IO. Subsequently the deponent obtained a duplicate copy of the DL which was submitted by the deponent before this Court. The car of the deponent was insured with the insurance company vide policy no. 2314202139338400000 valid for the period 14th March 2018 to 13th March 2019. He relied upon the following documents:-
• Fire report Ex.RW1/1.
• Insurance policy Ex.RW1/2.
• Copy of DL Ex.RW1/3
• Copy of verification report ExRW1/4.
In his cross, he stated that the accident was occurred due to fault of other vehicle which is Maruti Swift. He was not driving the vehicle so he can not tell at whose fault accident was caused. However, he admits that case has been filed against him and pending in the criminal court. The FIR in the present case was lodged around 6-7 days after the accident. He was the owner of vehicle bearing no. HR-74A-4972. It was attached to both Ola and Uber. He admits that he is aware that permit is required to ply the vehicle commercially. He applied for a duplicate DL as the DL was burnt in fire due to the accident. DL was issued for LMV.
MACT No. 213/19Kavita @ Savita Roy vs. Shamim Ahmed and Ors. Page No. 6 of 20
9. The insurance company has also examined as R3W1 Deependra Singh who deposed that he was working as manager litigation with the respondent no.2. The vehicle HR-74A-4972 allegedly involved in the accident on 23.04.2018 was insured with the respondent no. 2 company vide policy no. 23142021 39338400 000 valid from 14.03.2018 to 13.03.2019 in favour of Sh. Shamim Ahmed, respondent no. 1.The offending vehicle was running without a valid permit to drive the same on the date of accident i.e. 23.04.2018. The insured vehicle bearing no. HR- 74A-4972 was also being driven without any DL to drive the same. The DL of the respondent no. 1 was made in the year 2005 with category of LMV only. The insurance company has no liability to pay any compensation in the present case. The respondent no.2 issued a notice under Order 12 Rule 8 CPC upon Sh. Shamim Ahmed.
In his cross-examination, he stated that he has not verified about details of the permit from any RTO office. He has given the notice under Order 12 Rule 8 CPC to the respondent no. 1 but no reply has been received. It is also a matter of fact that respondent no. 1 has filed today the reply of the notice under Order 12 Rule 8 CPC after coming to know the facts of issuance of the notice from the affidavit filed on the last date of hearing. He denied the suggestion that the notice under Order 12 Rule 8 CPC has been intentionally sent on wrong address.
10. I have heard the arguments, perused the record and analyzed the witness examined and my issue-wise findings are MACT No. 213/19 Kavita @ Savita Roy vs. Shamim Ahmed and Ors. Page No. 7 of 20 as under:-
ISSUE NO.1
11. Needless to say that for making someone entitled U/s 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle needs to be proved and to prove the same the Tribunal need not go into the technicalities because strict rules of procedure and evidence are not followed. Basically, in road accident cases, Tribunal has simply to quantify the compensation which is just, rational and reasonable on the basis of enquiry. It is an admitted legal position that the negligence on part of the driver with respect to use of the vehicle needs to be established and the same is to be established on the principle of preponderance of probabilities as decided in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Harsh Mishra & Ors. III (2015) ACC 435 Delhi.
12. In the present case the Investigating Officer had filed the DAR containing FIR, Charge sheet, site plan, MLC etc. Perusal of FIR shows that the case was registered on the statement of injured Kavita @ Savita Roy. Charge sheet has been filed against the respondent no.1. PW1 had categorically deposed the fact about the occurrence of the accident due to rash and negligent driving of the Respondent No.1. Therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW1. Hence, it is established on record that petitioner Kavita @ Savita Roy sustained injuries in the accident which occurred on 23.04.2018 MACT No. 213/19 Kavita @ Savita Roy vs. Shamim Ahmed and Ors. Page No. 8 of 20 at Mandi Jonapur Road, Near Royal Farm, New Delhi, due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing no. HR-74A-4972, being driven and owned by respondent no. 1 and insured with respondent no. 2 Hence, issue no.1 is decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
ISSUE NO. 213. Now, the court has to assess as to how much compensation be awarded to the injured/ petitioner and by whom?
14. Ld. counsel for the insurance company states that the respondent was not having any permit and DL at the time of accident. So the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation.
15. However, the driver had produced the DL which has been verified by the IO. Ld. Counsel for the insurance company states that the DL of the respondent no. 1 is with the category of LMV only and the offending vehicle is a passenger carrying vehicle and has been insured also as a commercial vehicle.
16. The plea in this regard is not tenable. Firstly the driver was having the DL. It was Maruti Swift Dzire having purchased only 40 days prior from the date of accident. Skill to drive the car does not vary in cases of private or commercial vehicle so, Ld. Counsel for the insurance company can not take shelter for MACT No. 213/19 Kavita @ Savita Roy vs. Shamim Ahmed and Ors. Page No. 9 of 20 denying his liability on the pretext that the driver does not have any commercial licence to drive the car. If there is any fault in licence, it is the transport department or the police who can impose the penalty.
17. Another plea made by the insurance company for denying its liability is that there was no permit. However the counsel for the respondent no. 1 had stated that all the permit and the document have been burnt into fire because fire has been broken out and car has been badly damaged. Still he has not received any compensation from the damage of the car which was burnt in the accident. He further submits that he had replied the notice under Order 12 Rule 8 CPC and R3W1 does not give any answer and had not taken any details from the concerned department.
18. Arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the respondent no. 1 has the force because it was the insurance company who had denied the existence of the permit, burden of proving the same lying out on the insurance company for denying its liability that the owner was not having any permit. He has to make enquiry from the transport department. It is also a matter of fact that notice under Order 8 Rule 12 CPC has been sent to the respondent no. 1 on wrong address. The respondent no. 1 has filed detailed reply to the notice while appearing in the witness box. Therefore, it is the Insurance Company ie. Respondent no. 2 who is liable to pay the compensation.
MACT No. 213/19Kavita @ Savita Roy vs. Shamim Ahmed and Ors. Page No. 10 of 20
19. Injured person is entitled to damages for the injury suffered to him arising out of use of Motor Vehicle under both non-pecuniary and pecuniary heads.
COMPENSATION IN RESPECT OF INJURED/ PETITIONER KAVITA @ SAVITA ROY MEDICAL EXPENSES :
20. In the present case, the petitioner has filed medical bills of Rs.33,868/-. I award an amount of Rs.33,868/- to the petitioner /towards medical expenses.
PAIN AND SUFFERINGS AND ENJOYMENT OF LIFE :
21. Petitioner/ injured Kavita @ Savita Roy was admitted in JPN Apex Trauma Centre on 23.04.2018 and discharged on 08.05.2018. The injured suffered 20% disability in relation to her Left Lower Limb. She was diagnosed with "# bb leg left". Looking into the injuries and treatment of the petitioner, I award Rs.1,50,000/- to the petitioner towards his pain and sufferings and enjoyment of life.
SPECIAL DIET, CONVEYANCE AND ATTENDANT CHARGES :
22. Petitioner has deposed that due to the injuries he could not sit for longer hours and could not perform her duties and even today he is not able to do any job. Looking into the injuries, it is assumed that the patient must have taken special diet for her recovery and had made various visits to the hospital MACT No. 213/19 Kavita @ Savita Roy vs. Shamim Ahmed and Ors. Page No. 11 of 20 for his treatment and must have hired attendant.
In view of the above, I award Rs.50,000/- to the petitioner/ injured towards her special diet, conveyance and attendant charges.
LOSS OF AMENITIES
23. Due to the permanent disability, the petitioner would not be able to participate in the normal activities of her daily life to pursue her talents, recreation interest, hobbies and evocations. The injuries would also have an affect on her social life. I therefore, award Rs.30,000/- to the petitioner towards loss of amenities.
DIS-FIGURATION AND MARRIAGE PROSPECT 24 Petitioner was 24 years old at the time of accident. She has suffered 20% disability in relation to her left lower limb and same will affect her future life including her marriage proposal. I therefore, award Rs.100,000/- to the petitioner towards marriage prospect.
LOSS OF INCOME / FUTURE LOSS OF INCOME
25. Petitioner has suffered 20% permanent (physical impairment) and this disability would definitely affect her future working/prospects as well as her day to day movement. As a matter of rule the half of the functional disability of anyone of the limb has to be taken off for the purpose of calculation of future prospects. Since the petitioner has sustained 20% permanent physical impairment in relation to her left lower limb, MACT No. 213/19 Kavita @ Savita Roy vs. Shamim Ahmed and Ors. Page No. 12 of 20 considering her age and injuries, her functional disability is taken as 10% of whole body.
26. PW1 stated that she was doing private job in Kothi No. D1-1196 Vasant Kunj, New Delhi and was getting salary Rs.18000/- per month. However, no document in support of income has been filed on record. In the absence of any proof of income, minimum wages of unskilled wages prevailing in Delhi at the time of accident i.e. on 23.04.2018 is taken for the assessment of her future loss of income which was Rs.13,896/- p.m.
27. The injuries on the person of the petitioner were such that he must have remained out of work at least for three months. Thus, the loss of income comes to Rs.41,688/- (Rs.13,896 x 3).
28. As per the disability certificate the petitioner has suffered 20% permanent physical impairment in relation to his left lower limb. As per Adhar Card, the date of birth of petitioner is 25.03.1995. She was 24 years old at the time of accident i.e. on 23.04.2018. Taking a multiplier of '18', and the monthly income of petitioner as Rs.13,896/- per month and the disability of petitioner as 10% (of whole body), the future loss of income comes to Rs.19,454/- (Rs.13,896/- + Rs. 13,896/- x 40/100) X 18 x 12 x 10% = Rs.4,20,215/-. I therefore, award Rs.4,20,215/- to the petitioner towards loss of future Income.
The total compensation in favour of the petitioner Kavita MACT No. 213/19 Kavita @ Savita Roy vs. Shamim Ahmed and Ors. Page No. 13 of 20 @ Savita Roy is assessed as under :
MEDICAL EXPENSES :Rs. 33,868/-
PAIN & SUFFERINGS & ENJOYMENT
OF LIFE :Rs. 1,50,000/-
SPECIAL DIET, CONVEYANCE &
ATTENDANT :Rs.50,000/-
LOSS OF AMENITIES :Rs.30,000/-
DIS-FIGURATION AND MARRIAGE
PROSPECT :Rs. 1,00,000/-
LOSS OF INCOME :Rs.41,688/-
FUTURE LOSS OF INCOME :Rs. 4,20,215/-
----------------
Total :Rs.8,25,771/-
------------------
RELIEF
29. In view of my findings on the issues, I award a sum of Rs.8,25,771/- (Rupees Eight Lacs Twenty Five Thousand Seven Hundred Seventy One only) as compensation along-with interest @ 7% per annum to the petitioner Kavita @ Savita Roy.
Out of this amount, an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs ) is directed to be kept in the form of fixed deposit in the following phased manner :
• Rs.1,00,000/- for a period of 01 year.
• Rs.1,00,000/- for a period of 02 years.
• Rs.1,00,000/- for a period of 03 years.
• Rs.1,00,000/- for a period of 04 years.
• Rs.1,00,000/- for a period of 05 years.
Deposition of awarded amount with STATE BANK OF INDIA, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi.
In consonance to the idea conceptualized and formulated in MACT No. 213/19 Kavita @ Savita Roy vs. Shamim Ahmed and Ors. Page No. 14 of 20 various land mark judgments of our own Hon'ble High Court, by which part of the awarded amount is ordered to be kept in fixed deposit / savings account by Hon'ble High Court, respondent no.2 is directed to deposit the awarded amount in favour of the petitioners with State Bank of India, Saket Courts Complex Branch, against account of petitioners within a period of 30 days from today, failing which the respondent no.2 shall be liable to pay future interest @ 12% per annum till realization (for the delayed period).
The respondent no.2 is directed to credit the amount directly to the MACT account of State Bank of India, District Court, Saket branch. Details of the bank i.e. IFSC code etc. have been provided to the ld. counsel for the insurance company.
The award amount shall be deposited with State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi by way of RTGS/NEFT/IMPS in account of MACT FUND PARKING A/c 35195787436 IFS Code SBIN0014244 and MICR code 110002342 under intimation to the Nazir alongwith calculation of interest and to the Counsel for the petitioners.
MODE OF DISBURSEMENT OF THE AWARD AMOUNT TO THE CLAIMANTS AS PER PROVISIONS OF THE 'MODIFIED CLAIM TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE' (MCTAP) Upon the aforesaid amount being deposited, the State Bank of MACT No. 213/19 Kavita @ Savita Roy vs. Shamim Ahmed and Ors. Page No. 15 of 20 India, Saket Court Complex, New Delhi, is directed to keep the awarded amount in the "fixed deposit / saving account'' in the following manner:-
The interest on the fixed deposit be paid to the petitioners / claimants by Automatic Credit of interest of their saving bank accounts with State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi.
Withdrawal from the aforesaid account shall be permitted to claimants / petitioners after due verification and the Bank shall issue photo identity Card to claimants / petitioners to facilitate identity.
No cheque book be issued to claimants / petitioners without the permission of this Court.
The original fixed deposit receipts shall be retained by the Bank in safe custody. However, the original Pass Book shall be given to the claimants/petitioners alongwith the photocopy of the FDRs.
The original fixed deposit receipts shall be handed over to claimants / petitioners at the end of the fixed deposit period.
No loan, advance or withdrawal shall be allowed on the said fixed deposit receipts without the permission of this Court.
Half yearly statement of account be filed by the Bank in this Court.
On the request of claimants / petitioners, the Bank shall transfer the Savings Account to any other branch of State Bank of India, according to their convenience.MACT No. 213/19
Kavita @ Savita Roy vs. Shamim Ahmed and Ors. Page No. 16 of 20 Claimants / petitioners shall furnish all the relevant documents for opening of the Saving Bank Account and Fixed Deposit Account to Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Saket Courts Complex Branch, New Delhi.
The bank is also directed to get the nomination form filled by the claimants at the time of preparation of FDRs.
The bank is also directed to keep the money received from the respondent no.2 in an FDR in the name of the bank till the FDRs are prepared in the name of the claimants, so that the benefit of better interest may be given to the claimants for the said period.
The Manager, State Bank of India, District Court Saket branch is directed not to release any amount to the petitioners from this branch, unless ordered by the Tribunal in terms of the order of the Hon'ble High Court in FAO No. 842/2003 and CM Applications No. 32859/2017, 41125- 41127/2017 in Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. dated 09.03.2018. It is made clear that the amount including the maturity amount of the FDRs shall be released to the petitioner through RTGS/ NEFT directly in the personal bank account of the petitioners of the bank nearest to their place of residence.DIRECTIONS FOR THE RESPONDENT NO. 2
• The respondent no. 2 is directed to file compliance report of its having deposited the awarded amount with State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch in this Tribunal within a period of 30 days from today.
• The respondent no.2 shall intimate the claimants / MACT No. 213/19 Kavita @ Savita Roy vs. Shamim Ahmed and Ors. Page No. 17 of 20 petitioners about their having deposited the amount in favor of the petitioners in terms of the award, at the address of the petitioners mentioned at the title of the award, so as to facilitate them to withdraw the same. • Copy of this award / judgment be given to the parties for compliance.
• The case is now fixed for compliance by the 17.02.2023.
FORM IV-B
SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT
IN INJURY CASE
• Date of accident : : 23.04.2018
• Name of the injured : : Kavita @ Savita Roy
• Age of the injured: : 24 years
• Occupation of the injured : engaged in the job of
baby care.
• Income of the injured : Rs.13,896/-
(minimum wages of Delhi)
• Nature of injury : Grievous
• Medical treatment Remained admitted in
hospital taken by the
injured from
23.04.2018
to 12.09.2019.
• Whether any disability: 20% (10% as of whole
body)
Computation of Compensation
S. Heads Awarded by the
No. Claims Tribunal
1 Pecuniary Loss :
MACT No. 213/19
Kavita @ Savita Roy vs. Shamim Ahmed and Ors. Page No. 18 of 20
i Expenditure on treatment Rs. 33,868/-
ii Expenditure on special diet, conveyance Rs. 50,000/-
and attendant
iii Loss of Income during period of Rs.41,688/-
treatment
iv Any other loss which may require any
special treatment or aid to the injured for the rest of his life.
2 Non-Pecuniary Loss :
i Compensation for mental and physical
shock
ii Pain and suffering & enjoyment of life Rs. 1,50,000/-
iii Loss of amenities and marriage
prospects
iv Dis-figuration and marriage prospects Rs. 1,00,000/-
v Loss of amenities Rs. 30,000/-
vi Compensation on account of permanent -----
disability
3 Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity :
(i) Percentage of disability assessed and 20% (10% as of
nature of disability as permanent or whole body)
temporary
(iii) Future Loss of Income Rs.4,20,215/-
4 TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.8,25,771/-
5 INTEREST AWARDED 7%
MACT No. 213/19
Kavita @ Savita Roy vs. Shamim Ahmed and Ors. Page No. 19 of 20
6 Total amount of interest Rs.2,17,888/-
7 Total amount including interest Rs.10,43,659/-
8 Award amount released Rs.5,43,659/-
9 Award amount kept in FDRs Rs.5,00,000/-
10 Mode of disbursement of the award Some amount to be
amount to the claimant(s) released and some
amount to be kept in
the form of FDR
11 Next date for compliance of the award. 17.02.2023
Announced in the open court
on 17th January 2023
(ATUL KUMAR GARG)
Presiding Officer : MACT (SOUTH)
Saket Courts : New Delhi
MACT No. 213/19
Kavita @ Savita Roy vs. Shamim Ahmed and Ors. Page No. 20 of 20