Delhi District Court
Krishan Gupta vs . Mohit & Ors. on 23 September, 2019
IN THE COURT OF DR. HARDEEP KAUR
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
PO MACT, SOUTH EAST DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS: NEW DELHI
MACT No. 3903/16
Old Suit no. 129/14
FIR No. 195/13
PS : Lodhi Colony
U/s 279/337/338 IPC
CNR no. DLSE010014042014
Krishan Gupta Vs. Mohit & Ors.
Compensation case regarding grievous injury to Krishan Gupta 23 years
old
Krishan Gupta
S/o Sh. Ashok Gupta
R/o 129, BH Block, Shalimar Bagh
Delhi
.....Petitioner
Versus
1. Mohit Arora
S/o Sh. Madan Lal
R/o 42, Avtar Enclave, Paschim Vihar,
188486, Uday Chand Marg, New Delhi
.....Driver cum owner/ respondent No. 1
2. Reliance Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd.
plot no. 60, Okhla Ind. EstateII
Okhla PhaseIII, New Delhi02.
........................Insurance Company/respondent no. 2
...Respondents
MACT No.3903/16 Krishan Gupta Vs Mohit Arora & Ors. Page No. 1/19
Date of accident : 22.11.2013
Date of filing of DAR : 24.01.2014
Date of Decision : 23.09.2019
AWARD
1. DAR where no serious question of law or fact are involved can be
disposed of by short order. Negligence on the part of respondent No. 1
is to be proved on the basis of preponderance of probability, quantum of
compensation is to be determined and in case the insurance company
has raised any defence the liability to pay compensation is to be fixed.
2. Brief facts of the case is that on 22.11.2013, petitioner Krishan
Gupta along with Mr. Yatin Gupta and Deepak Gupta were going
towards Malviya Nagar from Chawri Bazar in their WagonR Car bearing
no. DL 8CAW 8805 which was driven by Mr. Yatin Gupta. At about
11.00 pm, when they reached near Sai Baba Mandir Red Light on Lodhi
Road, all of sudden, offending car bearing no. DL 4CNE 7736 which was
coming from the side of Madrasa and going towards Nizamuddin and
driving by respondent Mohit Arora in rash and negligent manner hit the
car of petitioner due to which the car of petitioner turned turtle thereby
causing grievous injuries to petitioner. The public persons had removed
the injured to Trauma Center.
3. As per Ex.CW2/1, petitioner Krishan was examined by the
Disability Medical Board for Neurological disability at IHBAS on
30.07.2018. As per report, it is a case of significant personality change
MACT No.3903/16 Krishan Gupta Vs Mohit Arora & Ors. Page No. 2/19
following head injury due to Road Traffic Accident on 22.11.2013. On
evaluation of psychiatric disability with Indian Disability Evaluation and
Assessment Scale, he has scored 12/20, showing 4070% of disability
which is not likely to improve.
4. After investigation, in FIR No. 195/13 registered at PS Lodhi
Colony police filed charge sheet under Section 279/337/338 IPC against
respondent No. 1. DAR was also filed by the IO before this Tribunal.
5. In response to the DAR, reply filed on behalf of driver cum owner
namely Mr. Mohit Arora stating that no accident has been caused due to
his negligence and the cause of action lay entirely with the claimant no.
1.
6. In response to DAR, legal offer has been filed by Insurance
Company which was not accepted by injured/petitioner, and thereafter
the matter proceeded further.
7. Following issues were framed on 15.03.2014 by Predecessor of
this Tribunal:
1. Whether the injured Krishan Gupta sustained grievous
injuries on account of rash and negligent driving of R1 of car
bearing no. DL 4CNE 7736 driven and owned by R1? OPP
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation, if so,
to what extent and from whom? OPP
3. Relief.
MACT No.3903/16 Krishan Gupta Vs Mohit Arora & Ors. Page No. 3/19
8. Petitioner Krishan, stepped in the witness box as CW1 and filed
his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex.CW1/A). He relied upon copy of FIR
Ex.CW1/1, site plan Ex.CW1/2, copy of insurance cover note Ex.CW1/3,
mechanical inspection report of WagonR Car as Ex.CW1/4, mechanical
inspection report of Etios Car as Ex.CW1/5, copy of MLC filed with DAR
as Ex.CW1/6, AIIMS report as Ex.CW1//7, Trauma Center Report as
Ex.CW1/8, copy of discharge summary of Trauma Center dated
25.11.2013 as Ex.CW1/9, casualty note dt. 12.07.2013 as Ex.CW1/10,
treatment record as Ex.CW1/11, AIIMS OPD cards as Ex.CW1/12 &
Ex.CW1/13, Clinical reports as Ex.CW1/14 & Ex.CW1/15, CT scan bill
as Ex.CW1/16, bill for admission charge as Ex.CW1/17, medical bills as
Ex.CW1/18, DAR as Ex.CW1/19, Charge Sheet as Ex.CW1/20, medical
bills as Ex.CW1/21, Salary Certificate as Ex.CW1/22.
9. In his evidence by way of affidavit injured deposed that on
22.11.2013, he along with Yatin Gupta and Deepak Gupta were going
towards Malviya Nagar from Chawri Bazar in their WagonR Car bearing
no. DL 8CAW 8805 which was driven by Yatin Gupta. At about 11.00
pm, when they reached near Sai Baba Mandir Red Light on Lodhi Road,
all of sudden, offending car bearing no. DL 4CNE 7736 which was
coming from the side of Madrasa and going towards Nizamuddin and
driven by respondent Mohit Arora in rash and negligent manner hit the
car of petitioner due to which the car of petitioner turned turtle thereby
causing grievous injuries to petitioner. The public persons had removed
the injured to Trauma Center.
10. In his crossexamination, injured deposed that he has not filed any
evidence to prove his income. It is further deposed that he has rejoined
MACT No.3903/16 Krishan Gupta Vs Mohit Arora & Ors. Page No. 4/19
his services five months before and at present his employer is giving him
a salary of Rs. 8,000/. It is denied that accident was caused due to the
negligence of Yatin Gupta.
11. Dr. Vijender Singh has been examined as CW2. Who had
brought the summoned record (Ex.CW2/1) and as per the report, the
disability can be roughly taken as 60%.
12. No other witness was examined on behalf of petitioner.
13. No witness was examined on behalf of respondents.
14. Arguments were addressed by learned counsel for the petitioner
as well as counsel for insurance company. Written submissions has also
been filed on behalf of petitioner as well as insurance company in form
VIB.
15. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, evidence adduced and
arguments addressed, issuewise findings are as under:
Issue No.1
16. Negligence in a compensation case before Claims Tribunal is to
be proved by preponderance of probability and the test is not as strict as
in a criminal case.
17. In this case, injured while appearing into witness box as PW1
made statement and narrated the mode and manner of the accident. He
deposed that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of
MACT No.3903/16 Krishan Gupta Vs Mohit Arora & Ors. Page No. 5/19
driver of offending vehicle. In contrary, no evidence has been led on
behalf of respondents. In Cholamandlam Insurance Company Ltd.
vs. Kamlesh 2009 (3) ADDelhi 310, it was held that if driver of
offending vehicle does not enter the witness box, an adverse inference
can be drawn against him. In the present case also, driver did not enter
into the witness box to controvert the claim of injured or even to explain
circumstances of accident.
18. Police after investigation had filed chargesheet against
respondents under section 279/337/338 of IPC which is also suggestive
of negligence of respondent in causing the accident. The IO has filed
Detailed Accident Report before this Tribunal. In National Insurance
Co. Vs. Pushpa Rana 2009 ACJ 287 Delhi, it was laid down that
completion of investigation and filing of chargesheet u/s 279/304A IPC
are sufficient proof of negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle.
19. It is well settled that the proceedings before the Claims Tribunal
are in the nature of inquiry and the finding of rash and negligent driving
by driver of the offending vehicle is to be returned only at the touch
stone of preponderance of probabilities. The factors noted above are
sufficient to conclude that preponderance of probability is made out
showing negligence of respondent No. 1 in causing the accident.
20. In view of the evidence adduced by petitioner, coupled with DAR
and chargesheet against R1, the issue No. 1 is decided accordingly, in
favour of the petitioner.
MACT No.3903/16 Krishan Gupta Vs Mohit Arora & Ors. Page No. 6/19
Issue no. 2
Sl. Pecuniary loss : Quantum
no
.
1. (I) Expenditure on treatment : As per Rs. 7,000/ Ex.CW1/16, Ex.CW1/17, Ex.CW1/18 and Ex.CW1/21, there are medical bills worth Rs. 7,000/ on record. Thus, petitioner is awarded a sum of Rs. 7,000/ under this head.
(ii) Expenditure on Conveyance : The Rs. 50,000/ petitioner has not filed any bill for conveyance. However, as per Ex.CW2/1, petitioner Krishan was examined by the Disability Medical Board for Neurological disability at IHBAS on 30.07.2018. As per report, patient is a case of significant personality change following head injury due to Road Traffic Accident on 22.11.2013. On evaluation of psychiatric disability with Indian Disability Evaluation and Assessment Scale, he has scored 12/20, showing 4070% of disability which is not likely to improve. By guess work, compensation can be awarded for conveyance.
(iii) Expenditure on special diet : The Rs.50,000/ petitioner has not filed any bill for conveyance. As per Ex.CW2/1, petitioner Krishan was examined by the Disability Medical Board for Neurological disability at IHBAS on 30.07.2018. As per report, patient is a case of significant personality change following head injury due to Road Traffic Accident on 22.11.2013. On evaluation of psychiatric disability with MACT No.3903/16 Krishan Gupta Vs Mohit Arora & Ors. Page No. 7/19 Indian Disability Evaluation and Assessment Scale, he has scored 12/20, showing 4070% of disability which is not likely to improve. By guess work, compensation can be awarded for special diet.
(iv) Cost of nursing / attendant : As per Rs.50,000/ Ex.CW2/1, petitioner Krishan was examined by the Disability Medical Board for Neurological disability at IHBAS on 30.07.2018. As per report, patient is a case of significant personality change following head injury due to Road Traffic Accident on 22.11.2013. On evaluation of psychiatric disability with Indian Disability Evaluation and Assessment Scale, he has scored 12/20, showing 4070% of disability which is not likely to improve. Even in the absence of documentary proof, compensation for attendant's charges is to be given even if services were rendered by family members.
(v) Loss of income : In his evidence by Rs. 48,516/ way of affidavit Ex.CW1/A, petitioner stated that he was working with a private firm as marketing head and was drawing a salary of Rs. 37,000 including commission. However, he deposed in his cross examination that he has not filed any record to prove his income or employment. In such circumstances, his income will be assessed as per minimum wages applicable in Delhi for an unskilled person at the time of accident which is Rs. 8,086/. Considering the medical documents and nature of injury, petitioner is awarded Rs. 48,516/ (6 months wages).
(vi) Cost of artificial limb : Not applicable
(vii) Any other loss / expenditure : Not applicable MACT No.3903/16 Krishan Gupta Vs Mohit Arora & Ors. Page No. 8/19
2. NonPecuniary Loss :
(I) Compensation of mental and physical Rs. 1,50,000/ shock : As per Ex.CW2/1, petitioner Krishan was examined by the Disability Medical Board for Neurological disability at IHBAS on 30.07.2018. As per report, patient is a case of significant personality change following head injury due to Road Traffic Accident on 22.11.2013. On evaluation of psychiatric disability with Indian Disability Evaluation and Assessment Scale, he has scored 12/20, showing 4070% of disability which is not likely to improve
(ii) Pain and suffering : Compensation for Rs.1,50,000/ pain and suffering is to be awarded keeping in mind the nature of injuries suffered by the claimant.
(iii)Loss of amenities of life :As per Rs.1,00,000/ Ex.CW2/1, petitioner Krishan was examined by the Disability Medical Board for Neurological disability at IHBAS on 30.07.2018. As per report, patient is a case of significant personality change following head injury due to Road Traffic Accident on 22.11.2013. On evaluation of psychiatric disability with Indian Disability Evaluation and Assessment Scale, he has scored 12/20, showing 4070% of disability which is not likely to improve y.
(iv)Disfiguration: Nil.
(v) Loss of marriage prospects : Rs. 1,00,000/
Petitioner is unmarried.
(vi) Loss of earnings, inconvenience, Already covered above
hardships, disappointment, frustration, mental stress, dejectment and unhappiness in future life etc.
3. Disability resulting in loss of earning MACT No.3903/16 Krishan Gupta Vs Mohit Arora & Ors. Page No. 9/19 capacity (I) Percentage of disability assessed As per Ex.CW2/1, and nature of disability as permanent or petitioner Krishan was temporary examined by the Disability Medical Board for Neurological disability at IHBAS on 30.07.2018. As per report, patient is a case of significant personality change following head injury due to Road Traffic Accident on 22.11.2013. On evaluation of psychiatric disability with Indian Disability Evaluation and Assessment Scale, he has scored 12/20, showing 40 70% of disability which is not likely to improve.
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of Already covered expectation of life span on account of disability :
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning 60% capacity in relation to disability:
As per Ex.CW2/1, petitioner Krishan was examined by the Disability Medical Board for Neurological disability at IHBAS on 30.07.2018. As per report, patient is a case of significant personality change following head injury due to Road Traffic Accident on 22.11.2013. On evaluation of psychiatric disability with Indian Disability Evaluation and Assessment Scale, he has scored 12/20, showing 4070% of disability which is not likely to improve. Having regard to the nature of work performed by injured before the accident his future income is directly affected due to this physical disability. During Petitioner's Evidence, Dr. MACT No.3903/16 Krishan Gupta Vs Mohit Arora & Ors. Page No. 10/19 Vijender Singh, Psychiatric, IHBAS examined himself as CW2 and he made opinion that disability can be roughly taken as 60% in this case.
In Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar 2011 (1) SCC 343 the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down a three step approach to decide compensation for the injured persons who have suffered permanent disability as under:
i) Tribunal should see as to what the injured can do inspite of permanent disability and what the injured cannot do.
ii) Tribunal should see the age of the injured and what the injured used to do before the accident.
iii) Tribunal should see if claimant is totally disabled from earning any kind of livelihood or whether he can carry out that activity which he was doing earlier or if he could do some other kind of activity to earn his livelihood.
Since the nature of disability is neurological, hence, his disability of 60% will be treated as functional disability to the extent of 60% of the whole body.
(iv) Loss of future Income: As per (60% of 97032/) x 18 Ex.CW2/1, petitioner Krishan was examined = Rs. 10,47,942/ by the Disability Medical Board for Neurological disability at IHBAS on 30.07.2018. As per report, patient is a case of significant personality change following head injury due to Road Traffic Accident on 22.11.2013. On evaluation of psychiatric disability with Indian Disability Evaluation and Assessment Scale, he has scored 12/20, showing 4070% of disability which is not likely to improve. But as per Doctor's opinion his functional disability will be MACT No.3903/16 Krishan Gupta Vs Mohit Arora & Ors. Page No. 11/19 assessed as 60%.
The income of claimant on the date of accident was Rs.8,086/ per month or Rs. 97,032/ per annum. Petitioner being aged around 23 years at the time of accident (as per Aadhar Card), multiplier of 18 is applicable.
In view of the recent judgment of the Hon'ble High Court in United India Insurance Vs. Pappu Deo in MACA No. 520/16 decided on 13.09.2018, no future prospects are awarded.
Total Compensation Rs 17,53,458/ Interest 9% p.a. from the date of filing of DAR which is 24.01.2014 till realization Liability :
21. Since, There is no statutory defence, therefore, the compensation will be payable by the insurance company of offending vehicle with interest @ 9% from the date of filing of DAR i.e. 24.01.2014 till actual realization which comes to Rs. 17,53,458/ + Rs. 8,92,390/ = Rs. 26,45,848/.
22. 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 No. 35195787436, IFS Code SBIN0014244 and MICR code 110002342 under intimation to the Nazir along with calculation of interest and to the Counsel for the claimant.
Apportionment:
23. The petitioner is awarded a sum of Rs. 26,45,848/ including interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of DAR i.e. 24.01.2014 till realization.
MACT No.3903/16 Krishan Gupta Vs Mohit Arora & Ors. Page No. 12/19Considering the financial needs, Rs. 24,00,000/ be kept in 48 FDRs of Rs. 50,000/ each for a period of 6 months, 12 months, 18 months and so on till 288 months. The maturity value of FDRs be also released by SBI, Saket to the bank account of petitioner as and when the FDRs mature from time to time. Balance amount of Rs. 2,45,848/ be immediately released to his bank account.
24. The following directions are also given to the transferee bank for compliance:
(a) The Bank shall not permit any joint name (s) to be added in the savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of victim i.e. the savings bank account(s) of the claimant(s) shall be individual savings bank account(s) and not a joint account (s).
(b) The original fixed deposit shall be retained by the bank in safe custody.
However, the statement containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by bank to the claimant (s).
(c) The monthly interest be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant (s) near the place of their residence.
(d) The maturity amounts of the FDR (s) be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant (s) near the place of their residence.
(e) No loan, advance or withdrawal or premature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the Court.
(f) The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book and/ or debit card to MACT No.3903/16 Krishan Gupta Vs Mohit Arora & Ors. Page No. 13/19 claimant (s). However, in case the debit card and/ or cheque book have already been issued, bank shall cancel the same before the disbursement of the award amount. The bank shall debit card freeze the account of the claimant (s) so that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of the claimant (s) from any other branch of the bank.
(g) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbo ok of the claimant (s) to the effect, that no cheque book and / or debit card have been issued and shall not be issued without the permission of the Court and claimant (s) shall produce the passbook with the necessary endorsement before the Court on the next date fixed for compliance.
FORM - IVB SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD.
1 Date of accident 22.11.2013 2 Name of injured Krishan Gupta 3 Age of the injured 23 years at the time of accident 4 Occupation of the injured Not proved 5 Income of the injured Rs. 8,086/ (minimum wages applicable in Delhi at the time of accident) 6 Nature injury Grievous injuries / Disability 7 Medical treatment taken by the Hospitalization:
injured:MACT No.3903/16 Krishan Gupta Vs Mohit Arora & Ors. Page No. 14/19
JPNA Trauma Centre, AIIMS, New Delhi
8 Period of Hospitalization 1) From 22.11.2013 to 25.11.2013 JPNA Trauma Center.
9 Whether any permanent As per Ex.CW2/1, petitioner Krishan disability? was examined by the Disability Medical Board for Neurological disability at IHBAS on 30.07.2018. As per report, patient is a case of significant personality change following head injury due to Road Traffic Accident on 22.11.2013. On evaluation of psychiatric disability with Indian Disability Evaluation and Assessment Scale, he has scored 12/20, showing 4070% of disability which is not likely to improve Computation of Compensation S. No. Heads Awarded by the Tribunal
1. Pecuniary Loss:
(i) Expenditure on treatment Rs. 7,000/
(ii) Expenditure on conveyance Rs.50,000/
(iii) Expenditure on special diet Rs.50,000/
(iv) Cost of nursing / attendant Rs.50,000/
(v) Loss of earning capacity See 13 (iii) and (iv)
(vi) Loss of income Rs. 48,516/
(vii) Any other loss which may N. A. require any special treatment or aid to the injured for the rest of her life.MACT No.3903/16 Krishan Gupta Vs Mohit Arora & Ors. Page No. 15/19
2 NonPecuniary Loss:
(i) Compensation for mental and Rs. 1,50,000/ physical shock
(ii) Pain and suffering Rs.1,50,000/
(iii) Loss of amenities of life Rs.1,00,000/
(iv) Disfiguration Nil.
(v) Loss of marriage prospects Rs. 1,00,000/
(vi) Loss of earning, inconvenience, N. A.
hardships, disappointment,
frustration, mental stress,
dejectment and unhappiness in
future life etc.
3 Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity:
(i) Percentage of disability 60% permanent disability
assessed and nature of
disability as permanent or
temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of Already covered
expectation of life span on
account of disability
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning 30%
capacity in relation to disability
(iv) Loss of future income (income Rs. 10,47,942/ x percentage earning capacity x multiplier) 4 TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs. 17,53,458/ 5 INTEREST AWARDED 9% 6 Interest amount up to the date Rs. 8,92,390/ of award 7 Total amount including interest Rs.26,45,848/ 8 Award amount released Rs. 2,45,848/ 9 Award amount kept in FDRs Rs. 24,00,000/ 10 Mode of disbursement of the Amount in FDR award amount to the claimant Rs 24,00,000/ be kept in 48
(s) (Clause 29) FDRs of Rs 50,000/ each for MACT No.3903/16 Krishan Gupta Vs Mohit Arora & Ors. Page No. 16/19 a period of 6 months, 12 months, 18 months and so on till 288 months.
Amount released Balance amount of Rs.
2,45,848/ be immediately released to her in her bank account near her place of residence.
11 Next Date for compliance of the 23.10.2019 award. (Clause 31) Particulars of FormV are as under: Date of the accident 22.11.2013 Date of intimation of the accident by the Not mentioned Investigating Officer to the Claims Tribunal. (Clause 2) Date of intimation of the accident by the Not mentioned Investigation Officer to the Insurance Company. (Clause 2) Date of filing of Report under Section 173 Not mentioned Cr.P.C. before the Metropolitan Magistrate. (Clause 10) Date of filing of Detailed Accident Information 24.01.2014 Report (DAR) by the Investigating Officer before Claims Tribunal. (Clause 10) Date of service of DAR on the Insurance 24.01.2014 Company. (Clause 11) Date of service of DAR on the claimant(s). 24.01.2014 (Clause 11) Whether DAR was complete in all respects? Yes (Clause 16) If not, state deficiencies in the DAR Not applicable Whether the police has verified the Yes documents filed with DAR? (Clause 4) Whether there was any delay or deficiency Yes. Application for MACT No.3903/16 Krishan Gupta Vs Mohit Arora & Ors. Page No. 17/19 on the part of the Investigating Officer? If so, extension of time has whether any action / direction warranted. been filed by the IO. Date of appointment of the Designated Not mentioned Officer by the Insurance Company. (Clause19) Name, address and contact number of the Not mentioned Designated Officer of the Insurance Company. (Clause 19) Whether the Designated Officer of the Yes Insurance Company submitted his report within 30 days of the DAR? (Clause 21) Whether the Insurance Company admitted Yes the liability?, if so, whether the Designated Officer of the Insurance Company fairly computed the compensation in accordance with law (Clause 92).
Whether, there was any delay or deficiency No on the part of the Designated Officer of the Insurance Company? If so, whether any action / direction warranted?
Date of response of the claimants to the offer 07.03.2014 of the Insurance Company. (Clause 23) Date of award. 23.09.2019 Whether the award was passed with the No consent of the parties? (Clause 22) Whether the claimant (s) were directed to Yes open savings bank account (s) near their place of residence? (Clause18) Date of order by which claimant (s) were 25.01.2018 directed to open saving bank account (s) near her place of residence and produce PAN Card and Aadhar Card and the direction to the bank not to issue any cheque book / debit card to the claimant (s) and make an endorsement to this effect on the passbook
(s) (Clause18 ).
Date on which the claimant (s) produced the 24.12.2018 passbook of their saving bank account near MACT No.3903/16 Krishan Gupta Vs Mohit Arora & Ors. Page No. 18/19 the place of their residence, along with the endorsement, PAN Card and Aadhar Card. (Clause 18) Permanent residential address of the R/o 129, BH Block, claimant (s)? (Clause 27) Shalimar Bagh Delhi Details of saving bank account (s) of the Punjab & Sind Bank, claimant (s) and the address of the bank with BC 88 West, Shalimar IFS Code. (Clause 27) Bagh Branch AC no.
07591000017070 IFSC: PSIB0000759 Whether the claimant (s) saving bank Yes account (s) is near her place of residence? (Clause 27) Whether the claimant (s) were examined at Yes the time of passing of the award to ascertain her / their financial condition? (Clause 27) Account Number, MICR Number, IFS Code, State Bank of India, Name and Branch of the Bank of the Claims Saket Court Tribunal in which the award amount is to be A/C No. 35195787436 deposited/transferred. IFS Code SBIN0014244 MICR No.110002342
25. Copy of this award be given to the parties free of cost. The copy of award be sent to the DLSA and Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate.
Digitally signed by DRDR HARDEEP
26. List on 23.10.2019 for compliance.
HARDEEP KAUR
Date:
(Typed to the dictation directly, KAUR 2019.09.24
corrected and pronounced 15:35:48 +0530
in the open court on 23.09.2019) Dr. Hardeep Kaur)
POMACT/(South East District) Saket, New Delhi MACT No.3903/16 Krishan Gupta Vs Mohit Arora & Ors. Page No. 19/19