Delhi District Court
Shiv Kumar (Dar) vs Shzaaz (Fir No. 401/22, Ps. S.J. ... on 28 April, 2025
Shiv Kumar vs. Shzaad and ors.
DLST010022792023
IN THE COURT OF SH. SUDESH KUMAR
PRESIDING OFFICER : MACT : SOUTH DISTT. : SAKET
COURTS : NEW DELHI
Petition No. : 64/23
CNR No. DLST01-002279-2023
SHIV KUMAR VS. SHZAAD AND ORS.
FIR NO.401/2022 PS Safdarjung Enclave
Mr. Shiv Kumar
S/o Mr. Kamal Singh
R/o H.No. 3936, Gali Barna Wali Jullahan,
Sadar Bazar, Delhi - 110006 ....PETITIONER
Versus
1. Mr. Shzaad
S/o Mr. Abdul Salam
R/o G-517, Block-G,
Gali NO. 9, Sangam Vihar,
Dr. Ambedkar Nagar, New Delhi. ..driver
2. Mr. Abdul Salam
S/o Mr. Harun
R/o 517, Gali No. 9, Block-G,
Hamdard Nagar, Sangam Vihar,
New Delhi. ..owner
3. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd.
New Delhi. ..insurance company
Date of Institution : 04.03.2023
Date of reserving of judgment/
order : 28.04.2025
Date of pronouncement : 28.04.2025
Petition No. : 64/23 Page No.1/18
Shiv Kumar vs. Shzaad and ors.
JUDGMENT:
1. This is a claim for compensation arising out of the Detailed Accident Report filed u/s 158(6) Motor Vehicle Act, qua petitioner Shiv Kumar for the injuries suffered by him in a vehicular accident which occurred on 25.10.2022 with respect to which FIR No. 401/22 was registered at Police Station Safdarjung Enclave against R-1 Shzaad, driver of the offending vehicle. The alleged offending vehicle is owned by Mr. Abdul Salam and insured with respondent no. 3/ Cholamandlam General Insurance Company.
2. The IO has filed copies of the criminal proceedings including FIR and the charge-sheet in the DAR.
3. Brief facts of the vehicular accident as averred in the DAR are that on 25.10.2022 at about 2.15 PM the petitioner Shiv Kumar was going on foot towards Humayupur Village. When he reached at B-6/12 Safdarjung Enclave Main Road at about 2.15 pm, one motorcyclist bearing no. DL-3SFB-7378 came and hit him. Due to the said impact, the injured fell down on the road and sustained grievous injuries.
4. Separate replies were filed by the respondent no(s). 1 and 2 / driver and owner stating that the said accident was occurred due to the negligence of the injured person. The respondent no. 1/driver was not driving any vehicle, therefore, there is no need to show driving licence on behalf of the respondent no. 1. This accident has been occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the injured and the respondent no. 1/driver has been falsely implicated by the police.
Petition No. : 64/23 Page No.2/18Shiv Kumar vs. Shzaad and ors.
5. The insurance company also contested the claim by filing WS inter -alia stating that the accident has taken place due to sole carelessness and negligence of the petitioner herself. Therefore, the neither the owner nor the insurance company of the offending vehicle can be asked to pay the compensation to the injured. The petitioner was not vigilant on the road and suddenly came on to the road while driving motorcycle Zomato Delivery systems. It is further stated that driver of the offending vehicle was driving in violation of Section 3/181 and 5/180 MV Act. Therefore, no cause of action arises against the insurance company. However, it is admitted that the offending vehicle was insured in the name of Abdul Salam from 15.03.2022 to 14.05.2023 vide policy no. 3397/03638697/000/00.
6. After completion of the pleadings, vide order dated 01.06.2024 following issues were framed :-
1. Whether Mr. Shiv Kumar Sustained injuries in the road accident on 25.10.2022 at about 2.40 PM near B-6 Market Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi due to rash and negligent driving of motorcycle bearing no. DL-3SFB-7378 being driven by respondent no. 1, owned by respondent no. 2 and insured with respondent no. 3?... (OPP)
2. To what amount of compensation the petitioner is entitled and from whom?.... OPP
3. Relief.
7. Thereafter the matter was referred to Local Commissioner for recording of evidence. Ld. Local Commissioner after recording the evidence filed his report.Petition No. : 64/23 Page No.3/18
Shiv Kumar vs. Shzaad and ors.
8. I have heard Ld. Counsels for the parties and have carefully perused the court record.
My findings on the issues are as under:-
ISSUE NO. 19. In a DAR matter, onus is on the petitioner to prove that he suffered injuries in the vehicular accident caused by the wrongful act or negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle.
10. In order to establish his claim, the petitioner Shiv Kumar has examined himself as PW1. In his affidavit filed in evidence Ex.PW1/A, he deposed on the lines of the DAR submitting that on 25.10.2022 at about 2.15 PM he was going on foot towards Humayupur Village. When he reached near B-6/12 Safdarjung Enclave, one motorcycle bearing no. DL-3SFB-7378 came and hit him. Due to the impact, he fell down on the road and sustained grievous injuries. He was brought to AIIMS Trauma Centre and treated there vie MLC no. 500341968/22 dated 25.10.2022. His statement was recorded in the hospital. After discharge from the hospital the police officials called and come at his residence and took his statements regarding the accident. He went to the police station for enquiry of the accident and saw the driver of the offending vehicle and correctly identified him. A criminal case against the respondent was registered with police station Safdarjung Enclave vide FIR no. 401/2022 u/s 279/338 IPC. At the time of accident, he was working with Zomato and was getting salary of Rs.25000/- per month. He tendered Petition No. : 64/23 Page No.4/18 Shiv Kumar vs. Shzaad and ors.
following documents in support of his contentions:-
1. Copy of aadhar card as Ex.PW1/1.
2. DAR as Ex.PW1/2.
3. Medical bills as Ex.PW1/3.
4. Copy of educational certificate as Ex.PW1/4.
In his cross-examination, he stated he had seen the offending vehicle but he had not seen the vehicle number at the time of accident. He admitted that all the documents were prepared by the police officials in the police station and he had signed all the documents in the PS. He denied the suggestion that the accident had occurred due to his own negligence. He admitted that he has not placed on record any document to show that he was working with Zomato Ltd. He admitted that the bills attached with the affidavit are only for Rs.700/-. He admitted that he has not placed on record any disability arising out of the accident. He admitted that as per medical record, he has not been advised any rest.
11. The insurance company has examined Mr. Sayok Bandyopadhayay, Manager, Legal as R3W1. He stated that he has been authorized by the company to depose in respect of vehicle bearing no. DL-3SFB-7378 having a two wheeler bundled policy no. 3397/03638697/000/00 issued for the period from 15.03.202 to 14.05.2027 which is in the name of Mr. Abdul Salam. He stated that the respondent no. 3 is not liable to pay any compensation as the driver of the vehicle was driving the said car without any valid and proper driving license issued by Licensing authority. As per the DAR, the respondent no. 1 has been charge- sheeted u/s 3/181 MV Act. Notices under Order XII Rule 8 CPC was also sent to the owner and driver to produce the valid driving Petition No. : 64/23 Page No.5/18 Shiv Kumar vs. Shzaad and ors.
licence but no proper valid driving license has been produced till date. Therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation in respect of the above case.
This witness was cross-examined by Mr. Pankaj Kumar Sharma, Ld. counsel for the petitioner wherein he stated that the DL of the offending vehicle has been investigated by the IO of this case wherein he has found that the driver was not carrying his driving licence. Notices under Order XII Rule 8 CPC was issued to the owner and the driver to show that the valid and proper driving licence but till date no such driving licence has been produced by the owner and driver. He has not produced the postal tracking report regarding the notice u/o XII Rule 8 CPC.
FINAL ARGUMENTS :-
12. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has argued forcefully that from the evidence of PW1 coupled with the criminal record filed by the IO, the petitioner has proved the fact that it was the respondent no. 1 who had caused the grievous injuries to the injured by his rash and negligent driving.
13. Ld. counsel for the insurance company contended that the respondent no.1 was driving the offending vehicle without having any DL. It is further contended that the accident has occurred due to the negligence on the part of the injured.
DISCUSSION:-
14. In the present case, the Investigating Officer had filed the DAR containing FIR, Charge sheet, site plan, MLC etc. Charge sheet has been filed against the respondent no.1. The injured Shiv Kumar had categorically deposed about the occurrence of the Petition No. : 64/23 Page No.6/18 Shiv Kumar vs. Shzaad and ors.
accident due to rash and negligent driving of the Respondent No.1. No other version of accident has come on record except the one as narrated by injured. The statement of the injured that the offending vehicle hit him finds support from the fact that the I.O. seized the offending vehicle and got it mechanically inspected.
15. The IO has filed the chargesheet and the DAR after completion of the investigation. In this regard, reliance can be placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Meera Devi & ors., 2021 LawSuit (Del) 2021 wherein it was held that "......in view of Delhi Motor Accident Claim Tribunal Rules, 2008, contents of DAR has to be presumed to be correct and read in evidence without formal proof of the same unless proof to the contrary was produced."
16. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., 2018 Law Suit (SC) 303 has observed that filing of charge sheet against the driver prima facie points towards his complicity in driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. It has been further observed that even when the accused were to be acquitted in the criminal case, the same may be of no effect on the assessment of the liability required in respect of motor accident cases by the Tribunal.
17. 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 on preponderance of probabilities and Petition No. : 64/23 Page No.7/18 Shiv Kumar vs. Shzaad and ors.
not beyond reasonable doubt, as are required in a criminal prosecution. Reference in this regard is made to the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court reported as (2009) 13 SC 530 in Bimla Devi and others Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others, wherein it has been observed that strict proof of an accident caused by a particular vehicle in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the petitioners and the petitioners were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability.
18. DAR and copies of criminal proceedings filed alongwith it are admissible in evidence and deemed to be correct under Rule 7 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Rules, 2008 unless proved to the contrary. Copies of criminal proceedings filed include FIR, chargesheet, site plan, MLC of the petitioner, mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle besides the documents pertains to the offending vehicle. Copies of criminal proceedings filed alongwith it have not been challenged and controverted by any of the respondents.
19. It is a settled legal position that while deciding a petition u/s 166 of the M V Act, the Claims Tribunal has to decide negligence on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities. Reference in this regard is made to the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Kaushnumma Begum and Others v/s New India Assurance Company Limited, 2001 ACJ 421 SC, wherein it was held that the issue of wrongful act or omission on the part of the driver of motor vehicle involved in the accident is of secondary importance and mere use or involvement of motor vehicle in causing bodily injuries or death Petition No. : 64/23 Page No.8/18 Shiv Kumar vs. Shzaad and ors.
to a human being or damage to property would make the petition maintainable u/s 166 of the M V Act.
20. The accident itself is not disputed. The police authorities were promptly involved and criminal law was set into motion. FIR was registered on the basis of DD entries. The respondent no. 1/Driver was charge-sheeted for rash and negligent driving on a public way thereby causing serious injuries to victim. The petitioner in his affidavit Ex.PW1/A has clearly deposed that the driver of the offending vehicle was driving it rashly and negligently. He has narrated the manner in which the accident has taken place.
21. As observed above, it was the respondent no. 1/ driver of the aforesaid vehicle who was a material witness to throw light by testifying as to how and under what circumstances, the accident had taken place. However, he has preferred not to enter into the witness box during the course of the inquiry. Thus, an adverse inference is liable to be drawn against him to the effect that the accident in question occurred due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle. The driver did not enter into the witness box to controvert the claim of the petitioner or even to explain the circumstances of accident. The evidence led by petitioner is unrebutted and un-controverted. The respondent no. 1 has not filed any complaint to any authority regarding his false implication. Insurance company also has not called the respondent no.1 or the IO to prove its case on the manner of accident. Pertinently, respondent no. 1 himself was the best witness who could have stepped into the witness box to rebut his involvement in the aforesaid accident, which he has failed to do.
Petition No. : 64/23 Page No.9/18Shiv Kumar vs. Shzaad and ors.
Therefore, an adverse inference is drawn against the respondent no.1/driver in terms of judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi passed in the case of Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Kamlesh, reported in 2009 (3) AD (Delhi)
310.
22. The damages on the offending vehicle were never been explained by respondent no. 1. From the mechanical inspection report produced on record it is found that there are fresh damages due to accidental impact on the offending vehicle which corroborate the version of the petitioner.
23. In view of foregoing discussion, it stands proved by preponderance of probability that the aforesaid accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle bearing registration no. DL-3SFB-7378 and that the said vehicle at that time was being driven by R-1, insured with respondent no. 2 and insured with R-3. Hence, this issue is decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
Issue no. 2 To what amount of compensation the petitioner is entitled and from whom?
OPP
24. As this Tribunal has already held that it was the respondent no. 1/driver of the offending vehicle who was responsible for the grievous injuries suffered by the claimant due to his neglect while driving the said vehicle at the relevant time, therefore, the petitioner has become entitled to be compensated for the grievous injuries suffered by him in the said accident. Now, the court has Petition No. : 64/23 Page No.10/18 Shiv Kumar vs. Shzaad and ors.
to assess as to how much compensation be awarded to the claimant and by whom? First of all the court has to decide as to whom the liability to pay the compensation is fastened.
25. As the offending vehicle was being driven by respondent no. 1, and owned by respondent no.2, so respondent no.1 is primarily liable and respondent no.2 is vicariously liable to compensate the petitioners. It is an admitted position on record that the vehicle was insured with respondent no.3, therefore, respondent no. 3 becomes contractually liable to compensate the petitioners/claimants for the amount.
26. In order to exonerate the insurance company from its liability, Ld. counsel for the insurance company contended that the respondent no.1 was driving the offending vehicle without having DL, which is breach of terms and conditions of insurance policy. It has relied upon the testimony of R3W1 Mr. Sayok Bandyopadhyay, Manager (Legal).
27. Perusal of charge sheet reveals that the respondent no(s).1 and 2 were also charge-sheeted for offence u/s 3/181 and 5/180 M.V. Act for driving the offending vehicle without driving licence. As per the policy, the driver of the vehicle must possess a valid and effective driving licence. However, in the present case as observed above, the respondent no.1/ Shzaad was not having a valid licence to drive the said offending vehicle at the time of accident. Therefore, it is proved that the respondent no. 1 was driving the offending vehicle in violation of the terms and conditions of insurance policy. Thus, the respondent no(s). 1 and Petition No. : 64/23 Page No.11/18 Shiv Kumar vs. Shzaad and ors.
2 i.e. driver and owner are liable to pay the compensation for their wrongful actions.
28. However, balancing the "twin interest" of the Insurance Company at one hand and that of the third party i.e. petitioners for whose benefit the present legislation was brought on the statute book, it is directed that the Insurance Company shall pay the compensation awarded to the petitioner within the time given in this award and shall have the right to recover the same from respondent No(s) 1/driver and respondent on. 2/owner equally.
29. Let the compensation be assessed which the claimant is entitled for under different heads.
MEDICAL EXPENSES :
30. As per the MLC, the petitioner has suffered grievous injuries. The petitioner has filed medical bills to the tune of Rs.735/-. Medical bills are in the name of petitioner coincide with the period of treatment. These documents were never disputed. Keeping in view the nature of injuries and bills place on record, I hereby grant a sum of Rs.735/- towards medical expenses.
PAIN AND SUFFERINGS AND ENJOYMENT OF LIFE :
31. As per the discharge summary, the petitioner was diagnosed with B/L NOE, LEFT ZMC, MIDALATAL SPLIT FRACTURE. The injured remained admitted in JPN Apex Trauma Centre, AIIMS from 26.10.2022 to 31.10.2022. The injuries on the person of the petitioner were grievous in nature. Looking into the injuries and treatment of the petitioner, I award Petition No. : 64/23 Page No.12/18 Shiv Kumar vs. Shzaad and ors.
Rs.1,00,000/- to the petitioner towards pain and sufferings and enjoyment of life.
SPECIAL DIET, CONVEYANCE AND ATTENDANT CHARGES :
32. In the present case the petitioner has not placed on record any document with regard to special diet and attendant charges. However, the injuries on his person were such that he must have taken special diet for his early recovery.
Therefore, looking into all the facts, I award Rs.40,000/- to the petitioner towards special diet, conveyance and attendant charges.
LOSS OF INCOME
33. The injured has contended that at the time of accident he was working as a delivery partner in Zomato and getting Rs.25000/- per month. However, he has not placed on record anything to show that he was working in Zomato neither he has examined any witness to show the same. As per the aadhar card of the injured, he is a resident of Delhi. Hence, in the absence of any proof of income the minimum wages of an 'Graduate and above' in Delhi is taken into consideration which was Rs.22,146/- p.m, is considered as approximate earning of the injured.
The injuries on the person of petitioner were such that he might have remained out of work for about 4 months. Hence I award a sum of Rs.88,584/- (Rs.22,146/- x 4) towards loss of income during period of treatment.
The total compensation of the petitioner hence comes out to be :
Petition No. : 64/23 Page No.13/18Shiv Kumar vs. Shzaad and ors.
MEDICAL EXPENSES :Rs.735/-
PAIN & SUFFERINGS &
ENJOYMENT OF LIFE :Rs.1,00,000/-
SPECIAL DIET, CONVEYANCE &
ATTENDANT :Rs. 40,000/-
LOSS OF INCOME :Rs. 88,584/-
==========
TOTAL :Rs.2,29,319/-
============
RELIEF
34. In view of my findings on the issues, I award a sum of Rs.2,29,319/- (Rupees Two lakhs Twenty Nine Thousand Three Hundred Nineteen only) to petitioner Shiv Kumar as compensation along-with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the DAR till its realization. Entire amount be released to the injured in his saving bank account near his residence.
Deposition of awarded amount with STATE BANK OF INDIA, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi.
35. In consonance to the idea by which part of the awarded amount is ordered to be kept in fixed deposit / savings account by Hon'ble high Court, respondent no.3 is directed to deposit the awarded amount in favour of the petitioners with State Bank of India, Saket Courts Complex Branch, against account of petitioner within a period of 45 days from today, failing which respondent no. 3 shall be liable to pay future interest @ 12% per annum till realization (for the delayed period).
36. The respondent no. 3 is directed to credit the amount directly to the MACT account of State Bank of India, District Petition No. : 64/23 Page No.14/18 Shiv Kumar vs. Shzaad and ors.
Court, Saket branch. Details of the bank i.e. IFSC code etc. have been provided to the Ld. counsel for the respondents
37. 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 SOUTH SAKET COURT A/c 42706751873 IFS Code SBIN0014244 and MICR code 110002342 under intimation to the Nazir alongwith calculation of interest and to the Counsel for the petitioner.
38. MODE OF DISBURSEMENT OF THE AWARD AMOUNT TO THE CLAIMANTS AS PER PROVISIONS OF THE 'MODIFIED CLAIM TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE'(MCTAP)
39. Upon the aforesaid amount being deposited, the State Bank of 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 petitioner/claimant by Automatic Credit of interest of their saving bank account with State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi.
• Withdrawal from the aforesaid account shall be permitted to petitioner/claimant after due verification and the Bank shall issue photo identity Card to claimants / petitioners to facilitate identity.
• No cheque book be issued to petitioner/claimant 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 petitioner/claimant alongwith the photocopy of the FDR's .
• The original fixed deposit receipts shall be handed over to petitioner/claimant at the end of the fixed deposit period.Petition No. : 64/23 Page No.15/18
Shiv Kumar vs. Shzaad and ors.
• 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 petitioner/claimant, the Bank shall transfer the Savings Account to any other branch of State Bank of India, according to their convenience. • Petitioner/claimant 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 claimant at the time of preparation of FDRs. • The bank is also directed to keep the money received from the respondents in an FDR in the name of the bank till the FDRs are prepared in the name of the claimant, so that the benefit of better interest may be given to the claimant for the said period. • The Manager, State Bank of India, District Court Saket branch is directed not to release any amount to the petitioner 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 petitioner of the bank nearest to his place of residence, the details of which have been given by the petitioner to the Tribunal and same details shall be given by them to the Manager SBI, District Court Saket branch.
DIRECTIONS FOR THE RESPONDENT NO.3/INSURANCE COMPANY • The Respondent no. 3 is directed to file the compliance report of its having deposited the awarded amount with State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch in this Tribunal within a period of 45 days from today.
• The Respondent no. 3 is directed to furnish a copy of this award alongwith the cheque of the awarded amount to the Manager of State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch, so as to facilitate the Manager of State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch Petition No. : 64/23 Page No.16/18 Shiv Kumar vs. Shzaad and ors.
to have the identification of the claimant/petitioner in whose favour the award has been passed.
• The Respondent no.3 shall intimate the claimant/petitioner about its having deposited the cheque in favor of the claimant in terms of the award, at the address of the claimant mentioned at the title of the award, so as to facilitate him to withdraw the same.
• Copy of this award / judgment be given to the claimant who is directed to furnish the same to the Manager of State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch for necessary compliance after his having received the notice of the deposit of awarded amount by the respondent no.3.
• The case is now fixed for compliance by the respondent no. 3 for 04.07.2025.
FORM IV-B
SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD
AMOUNT IN INJURY CASE TO BE INCORPORATED
IN THE AWARD
1) Date of accident : 25.10.2022
2) Name of the injured : Shiv Kumar
3) Age of the injured : 30 years
4) Nature of injury : Grievous
Computation of Compensation
S. Heads Awarded by the
No. Claims Tribunal
1 Pecuniary Loss :
i Expenditure on treatment Rs.735/-
ii Expenditure on special diet, conveyance and Rs.40,000/-
attendant
iii Loss of earning capacity -
iv Loss of income Rs.88,584/-
v Any other loss which may require any special ----
Petition No. : 64/23 Page No.17/18
Shiv Kumar vs. Shzaad and ors.
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 Rs.1,00,000/-
iii Loss of amenities ----
iv Dis-figuration and marriage prospects -----
v Loss of marriage prospects -----
vi Compensation on account of permanent ----
disability
3 Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity :
(i) Percentage of disability assessed and nature ---
of disability as permanent or temporary
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning capacity in ---
relation to disability
4 TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.2,29,319/-
5 RATE OF INTEREST AWARDED : @9% per annum
From the date of filing of DAR till actual
realization of principal amount awarded.
6 Mode of disbursement of the award amount Entire amount be
to the claimant(s) released to the
injured.
7 Next date for compliance of the award. 04.07.2025
Pronounced in the open court Digitally signed
On 28th April, 2025 sudesh by sudesh
kumar
kumar Date:
2025.04.28
16:04:31 +0530
(SUDESH KUMAR)
Presiding Officer : MACT (S)
Saket Courts : New Delhi
Petition No. : 64/23 Page No.18/18