IN THE COURT OF SH. M. K. NAGPAL PRESIDING OFFICER:MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI IN THE MATTER OF: GABBAR SINGH RAWAT & ORS. VS. RAJ KUMAR & ORS. MACP NO.437/13 1. Sh. [ENTITY], S/o. Late Sh. [ENTITY] 2. Sh. [ENTITY], S/o. Late Sh. [ENTITY] 3. Sh. [ENTITY], S/o. Late Sh. [ENTITY] All R/o. Quarter No.791, R.K. Puram Sector-6, New Delhi-110022. 2nd Address: A-49, Mahalaxmi Garden Phase-II, Khora Colony, Indrapuram, Ghaziabad, U.P. Petitioners Versus 1. [ENTITY], (DRIVER) S/o Sh. Manohar Lal R/o House No.1704, Sector 10-A, Housing Board Colony, Gurgaon, Haryana. Also At: House No.1687, Sector 10-A, Housing Board Colony, Gurgaon, Haryana. 2. Ms. [ENTITY], (OWNER) W/o Sh. [ENTITY] R/o. A-4/274, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi. [ENTITY] & Ors. Vs. [ENTITY] & Ors. [CASE NUMBER] Page no.1 of 22 2nd Address: M/s. ALCATEL India Ltd. Plot No.25, Sector-18, Electronics City, District Gurgaon, Haryana-122015. 3. The [ENTITY] (INSURER) A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi-110002. Respondents
Date of institution : 29.10.2013 Date of framing of issues : 07.07.2014 Date of hearing arguments : 17.07.2017 Date of decision : 25.07.2017 AWARD/JUDGMENT
1. This petition U/[SECTION] and [SECTION] of the [ACT], seeking a claim of compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- has been filed by the petitioners in respect of the accidental death of their father namely Sh. [ENTITY], who was an employee of Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'MTNL'). The above accident took place on 30.08.2000 at around 3pm at Rajpath Crossing, Maan Singh Road, New Delhi. As per case of the petitioners, the deceased was traveling in one Maruti Van bearing registration no. DL-1CF-7658, which was being driven by the complainant Sh. [ENTITY], also a driver of the MTNL, and PW3 Sh.[ENTITY], another employee of the MTNL. It is alleged that when after depositing the cash in the MTNL office at Khursheed Lal Bhawan, their van was proceeding towards CGO Complex, Lodhi Road and had reached at the above crossing, the offending Maruti Car bearing registration no.
[ENTITY] & Ors. Vs. [ENTITY] & Ors. [CASE NUMBER] driven by R-1 had come from the side of [ENTITY] at a very fast speed and had hit near the right rear wheel of the above Maruti Van. As a result of impact of the above accident, the Maruti van had overturned and it resulted into fatal injuries on the person of the deceased [ENTITY] and also some injuries to the driver as well as the other occupant of the said van.
2. Though, the above accident took place on 30.08.2000, as stated above, but this claim petition has been filed by the petitioners on 29.10.2013 only, i.e. after more than 13 years from the date of the accident. On being issued notices of the claim petition, appearance has been filed on behalf of all the three respondents.
3. In the WS filed on behalf of R-2, the ownership of the above said offending car bearing registration no. HR-26K-1614 has not been disputed. However, the factum of accident and the alleged manner of driving of the said offending car by R-1 have been specifically denied and disputed by the said respondent on the ground that a long time has passed since the accident and as per her knowledge, her above vehicle was not involved in any accident. It has also been specifically submitted by her that the present claim is barred by the Law of Limitation, as it has been filed more than 13 years after the alleged accident. However, seizure of the offending car in the criminal case registered in respect of the said accident has been specifically admitted.
[ENTITY] & Ors. Vs. [ENTITY] & Ors. [CASE NUMBER] Page no.3 of 22
4. No written statement on behalf of R-3 despite giving repeated opportunities had been filed till 17.07.2017 when an application was filed on record by R-3 for filing it on record, but it was dismissed as case was at the stage of final arguments. R-1 has also not filed any written statement despiting giving several opportunities.
5. The petitioners in support of their case have examined the petitioner no.1 on record as PW1 and he has duly tendered on record his examination in chief by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A and has also relied upon certain documents consisting of the identity documents of the petitioners and death certificates of their deceased parents. They have also examined on record one Sh. [ENTITY] as PW2, who is from the office of MTNL and has tendered on record certain documents pertaining to employment and salary of the deceased, and further one Sh. [ENTITY] as PW3, who was traveling in the above Maruti van alongwith deceased at the relevant time of accident. PW3 has tendered on record his examination in chief by way of affidavit Ex. PW3/A.
6. R-2 has also stepped into the witness box as R2W1 and has tendered on record her affidavit Ex. R2W1/A.
7. I have heard the arguments advanced Sh. [ENTITY], Ld. counsel for the petitioners, Sh.[ENTITY], Ld. counsel for R-2 and Ms. [ENTITY], Ld. Counsel for R- 3 and have also perused the entire material available on record.
[ENTITY] & Ors. Vs. [ENTITY] & Ors. [CASE NUMBER] Page no.4 of 22 Though, the objection with regard to limitation has also been raised, but since the repeal of [SECTION] of the aforesaid Act by the Amendment Act of 1994, there is no limitation prescribed for filing claims before the tribunal in respect of any accident. My issue-wise findings are as under:-
"Whether Sh. [ENTITY] sustained fatal injuries in the accident which occurred on 30.08.2000 at about 3PM at Maan Singh Road, Rajpath crossing, Delhi caused by rash and negligent driving of vehicle no.HR-26K-1614 being driven by respondent no.1, owned by respondent no.2 and insured with respondent no.3? OPP.
8. It is well settled that the procedure followed for proceedings conducted by an accident Tribunal is similar to that followed by a civil court and in civil matters the facts are required to be established by preponderance of probabilities only and not by strict rules of evidence or beyond reasonable doubts as are required in a criminal prosecution. The burden of proof in a civil case is never as heavy as that is required in a criminal case, but in a claim petition under the [ACT], this burden is even lesser than that in a civil case.
9. In case [PRECEDENT], it has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that in a road accident case, the strict principles of proof as in a criminal case [ENTITY] & Ors. Vs. [ENTITY] & Ors. [CASE NUMBER] are not attracted. Relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced as under:-
"15. In a situation of this nature, the Tribunal has rightly taken a holistic view of the matter. It was necessary to be borne in mind that strict proof of an accident caused by a particular bus in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the claimants. The claimants were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied. For the said purpose, the High Court should have taken into consideration the respective stories set forth by both the parties."
10. These observations were also quoted with approval in the subsequent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case [PRECEDENT].
11. However still, for succeeding in a claim petition petition filed U/[SECTION] of the [ACT], in respect of a vehicular accident, the petitioner has to prove by some satisfactory evidence that the accident in dispute has taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of driver of the offending vehicle. It is only thereafter that the owner of the said vehicle can be held vicariously liable for consequences of the said accident. The liability of the insurance company will also come only subsequent to that and it arises because of the contract of insurance entered into between the owner of the said vehicle and the insurance company. Reference in this regard can be made to [ENTITY] & Ors. Vs. [ENTITY] & Ors. [CASE NUMBER] Page no.6 of 22 the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases [PRECEDENT], [ENTITY] V. Meena Variyal and others, 2007 ACJ 1284 and [PRECEDENT].
12. Though PW1 is not an eye-witness of the above accident, but in his affidavit Ex.PW1/A he has stated that his deceased father Sh. [ENTITY] met with an accident on 30.08.2000 with the car bearing registration No. HR-26K-1614. As already stated above, PW3 Sh. [ENTITY] is an eye-witness of the above accident as he himself was traveling in the above Maruti van along with the deceased at the relevant time of accident and he in his affidavit Ex. PW3/A is found to have made specific depositions with regard to the accident as well as the manner thereof. He has stated in the said affidavit in clear terms that on 30.08.2000 at about 3pm, he alongwith Sh. [ENTITY] and Sh. [ENTITY] was going in Maruti van from Khursheed Bhawan to CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi and when they reached at the above place of accident, the above offending Maruti car came from the side of [ENTITY] at very high speed and driven most rashly and negligently by its driver on the wrong side and the said Maruti car had hit their Maruti van. He has also stated that as a result of the above accident, their Maruti van over turned and Sh. [ENTITY] received fatal injuries [ENTITY] & Ors. Vs. [ENTITY] & Ors. [CASE NUMBER] Page no.7 of 22 and succumbed to said injuries. He further stated that his statement of this effect was also recorded by the police. He also tendered on record a copy of his voter identity card as Ex. PW3/A.
13. Though, PW3 was cross examined at length by Ld. counsel for R-3, but nothing material could be extracted during his cross-examination to contradict or confront the above depositions made by him regarding the manner of accident or to be more specific, the manner in which the offending car was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by R-1. He specifically stated in his cross-examination also that he was traveling in the above said Maruti van alongwith deceased at the relevant time and he also sustained injuries in the said accident, besides the driver of the said van. He further stated that he was sitting on the rear seat of the vehicle and deceased was sitting on the front seat alongwith driver and the offending vehicle had hit their vehicle from the right side. He also stated that he was conscious after the accident and they all were removed to Dr.RML Hospital and he was discharged from the said hospital on the same day. He also denied the suggestion given to him by Ld. Counsel for R-3 that the accident took place due to sole negligence of driver of their vehicle or that no accident took place with the offending car.
14. As already stated above, R-1 has not come forward to contest this claim petition and has chosen not to file even any [ENTITY] & Ors. Vs. [ENTITY] & Ors. [CASE NUMBER] Page no.8 of 22 reply/WS to the present claim petition. He is husband of R-2 and though an opportunity was duly given to both of them to cross examine PW3, but they had even not availed this opportunity and they have also not cross examined the other two witnesses examined on record by the petitioners. Hence, the claim of the respondents that the above accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by driver of the above Maruti van has remained unsubstantiated. Moreover, due to non examination of R-1 on record and due to his not contesting the present claim petition, an adverse inference can also be drawn against him on this issue.
15. Besides the above evidence, the petitioners have also placed reliance on certified copies of the record of criminal case registered vide FIR No.435/2000, under [SECTION] [ACT], PS Tilak Marg regarding the above accident, which, inter-alia consist of not only the statement of driver of the above offending Maruti van, which is the basis of the said FIR, but also a copy of the site plan of the place of accident, copies of mechanical inspection reports of both the vehicles, copy of postmortem report and death summary of the deceased etc. and these documents also corroborate the other evidence led on record by the petitioners in support of their case.
16. R2W1 in her affidavit tendered in evidence as Ex. R2W1/A has specifically stated that the offending car was insured with R-3 vide policy no. 540413 during the period 15.11.1999 to 14.11.2000, which duly covers the date of accident and there is [ENTITY] & Ors. Vs. [ENTITY] & Ors. [CASE NUMBER] Page no.9 of 22 no challenge to this piece of evidence from the side of R-3. During her cross-examination conducted on behalf of the petitioners also, R2W1 has specifically stated it to be correct that her car was insured with the above Insurance Co./R-3. R-3 has also not specifically denied the factum of insurance of the said vehicle by it nor it has challenged the above claim and depositions of R2W1.
17. Hence, in view of above factual and legal discussions and going by the touchstones of preponderance of probabilities, this tribunal is of the considered opinion that the petitioners have successfully proved on record that the above accident was caused by the above offending car bearing No. HR-26K-1614 being driven by R-1, owned by R-2 and insured with R-3. It also stands proved that death of the deceased Sh. [ENTITY] was caused as a result of the injuries sustained in the said accident. The issue no.1 is, therefore, accordingly decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents no.1 to 3. ISSUE NO.2 "Whether the petitioners are entitled to for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? OPP
18. As the negligence on the part of driver of the above offending vehicle has been satisfactorily proved, the petitioners have become entitled to be compensated for the death of their father in the above accident, but the computation of [ENTITY] & Ors. Vs. [ENTITY] & Ors. [CASE NUMBER] compensation and liability to pay the same are still required to be decided.
COMPENSATION
19. It is stated that the petitioners are the major sons of deceased and their mother, i.e. wife of the deceased, has already expired on 07.11.1994, i.e. around six years prior to the accident. It has been argued on behalf of the respondents that the petitioners being the major sons of the deceased, were not financially dependent on the income of deceased at the relevant time of his death and hence, they are not entitled to any compensation for the loss of dependency.
20. The issue with regard to the financial dependency of the major sons of deceased has been discussed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in its judgment passed in case [PRECEDENT] and the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has been pleased to award compensation to such financially independent LRs of a deceased, while following the propositions of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case [PRECEDENT]. The Hon'ble High Court observed as under:
"6.Learned Counsel for the Appellants places reliance on [PRECEDENT]. It was acase of thedeathof a mason,aged58years.TheSupremeCourttooknoteofthefact [ENTITY] & Ors. Vs. [ENTITY] & Ors. [CASE NUMBER] Page no.11 of 22 that the claimants were not financially dependant upon the deceased,deducted50%towardspersonalandlivingexpenses ofthedeceasedandawardedthecompensationonthebasisof 50%ofthedeceased'sincomeascontributiontothefamilyor thesavingsbythedeceased(inotherwordstowardsthelossto estate).Thus, the compensation paid to the nondependent childrenwasprimarilytowardslosstoestate."
21. Therefore, since the petitioners were not financially dependent on the income of deceased, in view of the settled legal position, they are not entitled to any compensation for loss of dependency, but they are entitled to be compensated for the loss of estate. Hence, in view of the considered opinion of this tribunal, the 'just' compensation to be awarded in respect of death of Sh. [ENTITY], father of petitioners shall be as under:
i) Loss of Estate The petitioner no. 1 has appeared in the witness box as PW1 and has tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex. PW1/A. In his affidavit he has stated that at the time of accident his father was around 55 years of age and was doing service with MTNL. In order to prove the age of deceased, the petitioners have relied on the copy of service record of their father proved on record by PW2 Sh. [ENTITY], Chief Supervisor, an employee from the office of the deceased, as Ex. PW2/4 which shows the date of birth of deceased as 12.12.1946. Hence, the deceased was around 53 [ENTITY] & Ors. Vs. [ENTITY] & Ors. [CASE NUMBER] at the time of his accidental death. The appropriate multiplier applicable in view of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of [PRECEDENT] shall be of 11 for calculations of loss of estate.
PW2 has also proved on record a copy of last pay certificate of deceased as Ex. PW2/2, copies of entries made in the service book of deceased regarding his appointment as Ex. PW2/3 and also copy of entries in his service book regarding the other details of deceased also Ex. PW2/4. The copy of last pay certificate of deceased shows his last drawn salary consisting of Rs. 7,000/- as basic pay, Rs. 1,834/- as IDA, Rs. 2100/- as HRA, Rs. 350/- as Transport Allowance and Rs. 225/- as Food Allowance. However, from the aforesaid amounts, the transport allowance of Rs. 350/- and food allowance of Rs. 225/- will not form as part of wages for calculations of loss of estate as the same is to be granted for performing duties only. After the aforesaid deductions, the salary of deceased for calculations of loss of estate comes to Rs. 10,934/- per month. As discussed above, the petitioners shall be entitled to 50% of the earnings of deceased towards the loss of estate and the same come to Rs. 5467/- per month, i.e. Rs. 65,604/- per annum.
It is also argued on behalf of petitioners that 15% should be added in the income of deceased towards the future prospects. However, the Hon'ble Supreme court in case of [ENTITY]) has also discussed the issue of addition towards [ENTITY] & Ors. Vs. [ENTITY] & Ors. [CASE NUMBER] Page no.13 of 22 future prospects and the relevant para of aforesaid case law is reproduced hereunder:
11. In [ENTITY], this Court increased the income by nearly 100%, in [ENTITY], the income was increased only by 50% and in [ENTITY] the income was increased by a mere 7%. In view of imponderables and uncertainties, we are in favour of adopting as a rule of thumb, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the actual salary income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below 40 years. [Where the annual income is in the taxable range, the words 'actual salary' should be read as 'actual salary less tax']. The addition should be only 30% if the age of the deceased was 40 to 50 years.
There should be no addition, where the age of deceased is more than 50 years.
Hence, taking into consideration the aforesaid propositions of law, there shall be no addition towards future prospects as the deceased was around 54 years of age at the time of his accidental death. The loss of estate is thus computed to Rs.7,21,644/- ( i.e. Rs. 65,604x11) and the same is awarded accordingly.
ii) Loss of love and affection As already discussed above, the petitioners have lost their father in the present accident and they are deprived from the love and affection of deceased. Hence, in the considered opinion of this [ENTITY] & Ors. Vs. [ENTITY] & Ors. [CASE NUMBER] Page no.14 of 22 tribunal an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- would be just and proper towards loss of love and affection being suffered by petitioners due to the death of deceased and same is awarded accordingly.
iii) Loss of Consortium The petitioners are also awarded a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium.
iv) Funeral expenses An amount of Rs. 25,000/- is also awarded in favour of petitioners towards the funeral expenses. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE THE JUST COMPENSATION IS COMPUTED AS UNDER Sr.No. Heads Amount awarded
(i) Loss of Estate Rs.7,21,644/-
(ii) Loss of love and affection Rs.1,00,000/-
(iii) Loss of consortium Rs.1,00,000/-
(iv) Funeral Expenses Rs.25,000/- Total Compensation Rs.9,46,644/-(Rs. Nine Lacs Sixty Four Thousand Six Hundred Forty Four only) [ENTITY] & Ors. Vs. [ENTITY] & Ors. [CASE NUMBER] Page no.15 of 22 Interest There is nothing on record to withhold the interest. Hence the petitioner is awarded interest @ 9% per annum with effect from the date of filing of petition i.e.29.10.2013 till notice of deposit of the awarded amount.
The petitioners are thus awarded a sum of Rs.9,46,644/- (Rs. Nine Lacs Sixty Four Thousand Six Hundred Forty Four only) with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of petition i.e.29.10.2013 till notice of deposit of the awarded amount is given to them, alongwith a copy thereof to their counsel. However, it will be inclusive of the amount of interim award, if any, already passed in their favour.
APPORTIONMENT Petitioner no. 1 during his cross-examination has clearly stated that he got employment on compassionate grounds in the office of his deceased father, whereas the petitioner no.2 is not doing any work and petitioner no. 3 is in private job. Hence, out of the award amount Rs. 2,00,000/- is awarded in favour of petitioner no.1 and remaining amount, alongwith interest, shall be equally distributed amongst petitioners no.2 and 3.
[ENTITY] & Ors. Vs. [ENTITY] & Ors. [CASE NUMBER] Page no.16 of 22 RELEASE Entire share of petitioner no.1 shall be released to him. Out of the share of petitioners no. 2 and 3, Rs.2,00,000/- each is directed to be kept in 20 [ENTITY]s of Rs.10,000/- each for a period of 1 to 20 months with cumulative interest. The amount of [ENTITY]s on maturity would be released in the saving bank account of the petitioners no. 2 and 3 near the place of their residence (details of which will be directly provided by the petitioner to the UCO Bank, Patiala House Court Branch, New Delhi). The remaining amount over and above Rs.2,00,000/- of the share of petitioners no.2 and 3 is directed to be released to them by transferring it into their savings account.
Original fixed deposits be retained by UCO Bank, Patiala House Court Branch in safe custody. However, a statement containing [ENTITY] number, [ENTITY] amount, date of maturity of [ENTITY] and maturity amount of the [ENTITY]s be given to the petitioners no. 2 and
3. No cheque book be issued to the to the petitioners no. 2 and 3 in the savings bank account without permission of the court.
No loan, advance or withdrawal be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the Court.
The bank shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of the petitioners no. 2 and 3.
The petitioners no. 2 and 3 will provide relevant [ENTITY] & Ors. Vs. [ENTITY] & Ors. [CASE NUMBER] Page no.17 of 22 documents for opening of [ENTITY] accounts to UCO Bank, Patiala House Court Branch, New Delhi.
LIABILITY Respondent insurance company has not proved any violation of the terms and conditions of insurance policy. Hence, R- 3 is directed to deposit the above award amount with UCO Bank, Patiala House Court Branch, alongwith interest @ 9% per annum, by way of crossed cheque/DD in names of the petitioners within 30 days from today failing which it will be liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum for the period of delay. In case even after passage of 90 days from today, R-3 fails to deposit this compensation with proportionate interest, in that event, in light of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of [PRECEDENT], this compensation shall be recovered by attaching the bank account of the insurance company with a cost of Rs.5000/-.
R-3 shall inform the petitioners through registered post that the cheques/DDs of the awarded amount are being deposited so as to facilitate them to collect their cheques/DDs.
The copy of this award be given to the parties free of cost. A copy of this award be also sent to Manager, UCO Bank, Patiala House Court Branch, New Delhi for necessary compliance. Further Nazir is directed to maintain the record as per the directions given by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the judgment titled as [PRECEDENT]. passed in [CASE NUMBER] dated [ENTITY] & Ors. Vs. [ENTITY] & Ors. [CASE NUMBER] 12.12.2014 which has been circulated vide Circular No.1028/Civil- IV/DHC dated 14.01.2015.
The particulars of Form-IV of the Modified Claims Tribunal Agreed Procedure as under:
1. Date of Accident : 30.08.2000
2. Date of intimation of the :
accident by the Investigation No intimation Officer to the Claims Tribunal.
3. Date of intimation of the :
accident by the Investigating No intimation Officer to the Insurance company.
4. Date of filing of Report under :
[SECTION] [ACT] before the Not Available Metropolitan Magistrate.
5. Date of filing of Details :
Dispensed with as the Accident Report (DAR) by the accident pertains to the Investigating Officer before year 2000.
Claims Tribunal.
6. Date of service of DAR on the : DAR was not filed since Insurance Company. the matter pertains to the year 2000.
7. Date of service of DAR on the : Dispensed with as no claimant(s). DAR was filed.
8. Whether DAR was complete in : Dispensed with as no all respects? DAR was filed.
9. If not, state deficiencies in the : Dispensed with as no DAR DAR was filed.
10. Whether the police has verified : Dispensed with as no the documents file with DAR? DAR was filed.
[ENTITY] & Ors. Vs. [ENTITY] & Ors. [CASE NUMBER] Page no.19 of 22
11. Whether there was any delay :
or deficiencies on the part of Dispensed with as no the Investigating Officer? If so, DAR was filed.
whether any action/direction warranted?
12. Date of appointment of the :
Designated Officer by the Details not provided Insurance Company.
13. Name, address and contact :
number of the Designated Details not provided.
Officer of the Insurance Company.
14. Whether the Designated :
Officer of the Insurance Dispensed with as no Company submitted his report DAR was filed. within 30 days of the DAR?
15. Whether the Insurance :
Company admitted the liability? If so, whether the Designated Officer of the Offer not filed. Insurance Company fairly computed the compensation in accordance with law. 16. Whether there was any delay : or deficiencies on the part of the Designated Officer of the No. Insurance Company? If so, whether any action/direction warranted? 17. Date of response of the : claimant(s) of the offer of the Offer not made Insurance Company. 18. Date of the award : 25.07.2017 [ENTITY] & Ors. Vs. [ENTITY] & Ors. [CASE NUMBER] Page no.20 of 22 19. Whether the award was : passed with the consent of the No parties? 20. Whether the claimant(s) : examined at the time of passing of the award to Yes ascertain his/their financial condition? 21. Whether the photographs, : specimen signatures, proof of residence and particulars of bank account of the Directions given. injured/legal heirs of the deceased taken at the time of passing of award? 22. Mode of disbursement of the : Disbursed in phased award amount to the manner though bank. claimant(s). 23. Next date for compliance of : 27.10.2017 the award.
File be consigned to Records after necessary formalities. A separate file be prepared for compliance report and be put up on 27.10.2017.
Announced in the open court. ([ENTITY]) on 25.07.2017 PO/MACT, New Delhi. [ENTITY] & Ors. Vs. [ENTITY] & Ors. [CASE NUMBER]
[ENTITY] & Ors. Vs. [ENTITY] & ors.
25.07.2017 Present: None.
Vide separate order an award for a sum of Rs.9,46,644/-(Rs. Nine Lacs Sixty Four Thousand Six Hundred Forty Four only) alongwith interest, as directed therein and also including the amount of interim award, if any, already passed, has been passed today in favour of petitioners.
R-3/insurance company has been directed to comply with the award.
The main file be consigned to Records after completing the requisite formalities.
The separate file prepared in terms of directions contained in the award, be put up on 27.10.2017 for reporting compliance.
([ENTITY]) Judge/MACT, New Delhi 25.07.2017 [ENTITY] & Ors. Vs. [ENTITY] & Ors. [CASE NUMBER] Page no.22 of 22