[PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] & ors. vs. Sh. [ENTITY] & ors. IN THE COURT OF SH. [ENTITY], JUDGE, MACT-1 (CENTRAL), THC, DELHI. MACT No. 358641/2016 Unique Case ID No. DLCT01-017623-2016 1. [PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] W/o Sh. [ENTITY] 2. Sh. [ENTITY], S/o Sh. Khem Chand 3. Ms. [ENTITY] S/o Sh. [ENTITY] 4. Mst. [ENTITY] S/o Sh. [ENTITY] 5. [ENTITY] D/o Sh. [ENTITY] All Resident of: House No. 72, Purashah, Dhanola Kalar, Samshabad, Agra, Fatehabad, U. P. (Petitioner No. 3 to 5 being minor through their mother/natural guardian [PRECEDENT] [ENTITY]) Petitioners VERSUS 1. Sh. [ENTITY], S/o Sh. Jai Singh, R/o Village Asanda PO Sampla District Jhajjar Haryana. Respondent No.1
(Driver) [PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] & ors. vs. Sh. [ENTITY] & ors.
2. DTC, Sr. Manager DTC CWS-1 Banda, Bahadur Marg, Delhi.
Respondent No.2 (Owner)
3. [ENTITY]
E-85, Himalaya House, KG Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi.
Respondent No.2 (Insurer) Date of filing of the claim petition : 09.12.2016 Arguments heard on : 04.12.2018 Date of announcement of Award : 22.12.2018 Present: Sh. [ENTITY], Advocate, counsel for petitioner
Sh. [ENTITY], Advocate, counsel for respondent no.1 & 2 Sh. [ENTITY], Advocate, counsel for respondent no.3 FORM- V COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE MODIFIED CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEXDURE TO BE MENTIONED IN THE AWARD
1. Date of the accident 07.07.2016
2. Date of intimation of the accident by 08.07.2016 the Investigating Officer to the Claims [PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] & ors. vs. Sh. [ENTITY] & ors.
Tribunal. (Clause 2)
3. Date of intimation of the accident by 08.07.2016 the Investigating Officer to the Insurance Company. (Clause 2)
4. Date of filing of Report under [SECTION] [ACT] before the Metropolitan Magistrate. (Clause 10)
5. Date of filing of Detailed Accident 09.12.2016 Information Report (DAR) by the Investigating Officer before Claims Tribunal. (Clause 10)
6. Date of service of DAR on the 09.12.2016 Insurance Company. (Clause 11)
7. Date of service of DAR on the 09.12.2016 claimant(s). (Clause 11)
8. Whether DAR was complete in all Yes respects? (Clause 16)
9. If not, whether deficiencies in the -
DAR removed later on?
10. Whether the police has verified the Yes documents filed with DAR? (Clause 4)
11. Whether there was any delay or No deficiency on the part of the Investigating Officer? If so, whether any action/ direction warranted?
12. Date of appointment of the Designated 28.11.2016 Officer by the Insurance Company.
(Clause 20)
13. Name, address and contact number Sh. [ENTITY], of the Designated Officer of the Advocate Insurance Company. (Clause 20)
14. Whether the Designated Officer of the No Insurance Company submitted his report within 30 days of the DAR?
(Clause 22)
15. Whether the Insurance Company No [PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] & ors. vs. Sh. [ENTITY] & ors.
admitted the liability? If so, whether the Designated Officer of the Insurance Company fairly computed the compensation in accordance with law.(Clause 23)
16. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on the part of the No Designated Officer of the Insurance Company? If so, whether any action/direction warranted?
17. Date of response of the claimant(s) to -
the offer of the Insurance Company. (Clause 24)
18. Date of the award 22.12.2018
19. Whether the award was passed with No the consent of the parties?(Clause 22)
20. Whether the claimant(s) were directed -
to open savings bank account(s) near their place of residence? (Clause 18)
21. Date of order by which claimant(s) were directed to open savings bank - account(s) near his place of residence and produce PAN Card and Adhaar Card and the direction to the bank not issue any cheque book/debit card to the claimant(s) and make an endorsement to this effect on the passbook(s).(Clause 18)
22. Date on which the claimant(s) Passbook not yet produced the passbook of their produced savings bank account near the place of their residence along with the endorsement, PAN Card and Adhaar Card? (Clause 18)
23. Permanent Residential Address of the As mentioned in Claimant(s)(Clause 27) award
24. Details of savings bank account(s) of [PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] the claimant(s) and the address of the HDFC Bank Ltd. bank with [ACT] Fatehbabad U.P. A/c 50100215343597 IFSC-
[PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] & ors. vs. Sh. [ENTITY] & ors.
HDFC0003042 Sh. [ENTITY] SBI, Samshabad Fatehbabad U.P. A/c 33093210415 IFSC-
SBIN0003987
25. Whether the claimant(s) savings bank Yes account(s) is near his place of residence?(Clause 27) 26 Whether the claimant(s) were Yes on examined at the time of passing of the 111.10.2017 award to ascertain his/their financial condition? (Clause AWARD:
1. Detailed Accident Report (hereinafter referred to as DAR) has been filed in respect of an 331/2016 for the offence punishable under [SECTION] [ACT], PS I. P. Estate, Delhi in relation to fatal injuries caused to deceased [ENTITY] in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 07.07.2016 within the jurisdiction of PS I.P. Estate, Delhi.
2. Facts in brief as emerged from the DAR are that on 07.07.2016 Const. [ENTITY] was on patrolling duty on his motor cycle bearing registration No. DL-1SN-9127 (Oscar-90). It was alleged that he was patrolling from Raj Ghat towards ITO side. At about 5:10 PM when he [PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] & ors. vs. Sh. [ENTITY] & ors.
reached underpass flyover, Salimgarh, DTC bus bearing registration No. DL-1PC-7156 was going ahead to him. He saw that the bus hit a motor cycle bearing registration No. DL-4SCA-0360 when the motor cycle was coming down from flyover located behind Raj Ghat, Power House, the motor-cyclist entangled at the front bumper of the bus. The motor cyclist sustained injuries. Constable apprehended the bus, which was being driven by [ENTITY] (respondent no.1). It was alleged that the accident had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of [ENTITY]. Though injured was taken to hospital, but he succumbed to his injuries. During investigation, his name was revealed as [ENTITY]. It was further revealed that said motor cycle belonged to one [ENTITY], who had lodged E-FIR No.020057/16 at PS Samaypur Badli alleging that his motor cycle had been stolen between 4:30 PM to 5 PM.
(i) It was alleged that at the time of accident, offending bus was being driven by respondent no.1 and it was registered in the name of respondent no.2 whereas same was insured with respondent no.3.
3. Claim petition was contested by all the respondents by filing their separate reply.
(i) Respondent No. 1 & 2 in their joint reply submitted that the accident in question had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of motor cyclist as he was driving the motor cycle at very high speed and due to that reason, motor cyclist lost control over his motor cycle and hit his motor [PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] & ors. vs. Sh. [ENTITY] & ors.
cycle with road divider and thereafter, he fell down on the road in front of the bus. It was further submitted that since respondent no.1 was having a valid licence and bus was duly insured with respondent no.3, liability if any, respondent no.3 is liable to indemnify the same.
(ii) In its reply, respondent no.3 fairly admitted that the bus was duly insured with it and policy was valid at the time of accident, but took a plea that since the accident had taken place due to the negligence of motor cyclist, insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation.
4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, vide order dated 13.02.2017, following issues were framed:-
(i) Whether the deceased [ENTITY] had died in an accident on 07.07.2016 at Raj Ghat to ITO road due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing registration No. DL-1PC-7156 by respondent no.1 as alleged?
(ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation, if so, for what amount and from whom?
(iii) Relief.
5. In order to prove their case, claimants examined following witnesses:
[PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] & ors. vs. Sh. [ENTITY] & ors.
PW1 [PRECEDENT] [ENTITY], mother of deceased PW2 [ENTITY], eye witnesses PW3 Sh. [ENTITY], cousin of deceased
(i) In rebuttal respondent no. 3 examined following witnesses:-
R2W1 [ENTITY], proved the FIR of theft of motor cycle R2W2 SI [ENTITY], IO of the accident case
(ii) Respondent No.1 & 2 did not lead any evidence.
6. On completion of evidence led by both the parties, statement of petitioners were recorded on 11.10.2017 in terms of Clause 26 of [ENTITY] & Ors. Vs. [ENTITY] FAO No. 842/03 decided by Hon'ble Delhi High Court on 12.12.2014.
7. I have heard rival submissions advanced by counsel for petitioners and respondents, perused the record carefully and gave my thoughtful consideration to their contentions.
8. My issue-wise findings are as under:-
[PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] & ors. vs. Sh. [ENTITY] & ors.
Issue No. 1:
Whether the deceased [ENTITY] had died in an accident on 07.07.2016 at Raj Ghat to ITO road due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing registration No. DL-1PC-7156 by respondent no.1 as alleged?
FINDING:-
9. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents vehemently contended that the accident in question had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the deceased as he after committing the theft of motor cycle between 4:30 PM to 5 PM was fleeing from the spot on the motor cycle and due to that reason, he was driving the motor cycle at quite excessive speed. It was argued that as per FIR, theft had taken place in the area of Jahangir Puri between 4:30 PM to 5 PM whereas the accident had taken place near Raj Ghat at about 5:10 PM, it means that motor cyclist covered the distance of about 20 km within half an hour. This shows that he was driving the motor cycle at quite excessive speed and due to that reason, he lost control over the motor cycle while coming down from flyover and collided with the bus, which was going from Raj Ghat to ITO side.
(i) Per contra, counsel appearing for the petitioners refuted the said contentions by arguing that deceased was working with the owner of motor cycle and the motor cycle was given to him by [ENTITY], supervisor of [ENTITY] to [PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] & ors. vs. Sh. [ENTITY] & ors.
fetch non-veg food from [ENTITY] and due to that reason, deceased was driving the motor cycle. It was argued that since the motor cycle was not insured, [ENTITY] in order to escape from his liability lodged a false FIR alleging that motor cycle was stolen. It was argued that the motor cycle was never stolen. It was argued that from the testimony of [ENTITY], it is clear that accident in question, had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of bus.
10. From the submissions raised by the counsel for the parties, first question arises whether the deceased had stolen the motor cycle or not?
(i) In this regard, the testimony of PW2, R3W1 and R3W2 are relevant.
(ii) R3W1 in his examination-in-chief testified that on 07.07.2016 [ENTITY] came to the PS Samaypur Badli to lodge an FIR regarding theft of his motor cycle bearing registration No. DL-4S-CA-0360. Accordingly, same was recorded vide E-FIR No. 02257/16 and the same is Ex. R3W1/1. He further testified that [ENTITY] had given the information of theft of his motor cycle to the PCR at about 5:20 PM. R3W2 SI [ENTITY] also testified that [ENTITY] informed the police control room about the theft of his motor cycle at about 5:20 PM.
(iii) Perusal of FIR reveals that on 07.07.2016 [PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] & ors. vs. Sh. [ENTITY] & ors.
[ENTITY] went to the room of [ENTITY] on his motor cycle at 4:30 PM. He parked his motor cycle on the road and when he returned at 5 PM, he saw that his motor cycle was missing. Accordingly, firstly, he informed the police control room at 5:20 PM and thereafter went to police station to lodge an FIR. It means that the motor cycle had been stolen between 4:30 PM to 5 PM.
(iv) Though PW3 [ENTITY] deposed that deceased knew [ENTITY] through him and the motor cycle was given to the deceased by [ENTITY] with the consent of [ENTITY] as deceased was sent to [ENTITY] to bring non-veg food, but his testimony is not corroborated by any of the witnesses. During inquiry, claimants did not deem it appropriate either to examine [ENTITY] or [ENTITY]. In the absence of their deposition, testimony of PW3 that [ENTITY] was sent to [ENTITY] to fetch non-veg food does not inspire any confidence. Further, it is admitted case of the claimants that the accident had taken place at about 5:10 PM. As per the statement of PW2, he informed the police and then police reached the spot. In this process, police must have taken some time to reach the spot. Thus, there was no occasion for [ENTITY] by 5:20 PM to know that deceased met with an accident by his motor cycle. Thus, the contention of the counsel that [ENTITY] had lodged an FIR in order to avoid his liability as the motor cycle was not insured is without any substance.
(v) As already stated that the motor cycle was [PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] & ors. vs. Sh. [ENTITY] & ors.
stolen from Jahangir Puri whereas the accident had taken place at near Raj Ghat, Power House. The distance between the place of theft and accident is between 15 to 20 km. It means that deceased had covered the said distance in a short period of half an hour. This shows that he must be driving the motor cycle at quite excessive speed.
(vi) Further, there is nothing on record, which may show that the key of motor cycle was recovered from the deceased. This further shows that the motor cycle was stolen by the deceased and same was not handed over to him by [ENTITY] as alleged by the claimants.
(vii). Now coming the Site plan. From the Site plan, it is clear that motor cyclist was coming down from Salim Garh flyover whereas bus was coming from Raj Ghat and going towards ITO side and the accident had taken place near the Central verge at the place where the road coming from flyover merged with the main road going to ITO. Since at the merged point, bus was being driven towards extreme right side of the road i.e. near Central verge, it means that motor cyclist had sufficient space to join the main road. Since deceased was coming down from flyover, it was his duty to see whether any vehicle was coming from behind and he was not supposed to come towards extreme right side of the road. Rather, he was supposed to remain in the left side of the lane and come towards right side slowly after seeing that no vehicle was coming from behind. But from the site plan, it can safely be [PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] & ors. vs. Sh. [ENTITY] & ors.
culled out that the deceased had negotiated a deep turn at the time of joining the main road and due to that reason, he came towards extreme right side of the main road and he collided with the bus, which was coming from Raj Ghat and going towards ITO side. From the Site plan, it can also be culled out that the negligence was on the part of deceased.
(viii). Now coming the testimony of sole eye witness. Though PW2 in his examination-in-chief deposed that the negligence was on the part of bus driver, but he did not clarify what was his negligence. In his cross-examination, he deposed that the distance between his motor cycle and bus was between 10-12 feet and he was driving the motor cycle at normal speed. Since the distance between motor cycle and bus was just 10-12 ft and the speed of the motor cycle was normal, it shows that the speed of the bus must be also normal at the time of accident otherwise the distance between motor cycle and bus would be quite wide. Thus, it cannot be said that the bus was being driven at high speed. As already stated that PW2 did not state what was the rashness or negligence on the part of bus driver and from the site plan, it can safely be culled out that negligence was on the part of deceased as he had negotiated a deep turn while joining the main road and in that process, he collided with the bus, which was coming from Raj Ghat to ITO side. This clearly establishes that the accident had taken place due to the negligence of deceased.
(ix) In view of the foregoing discussion, I am of [PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] & ors. vs. Sh. [ENTITY] & ors.
the considered opinion that the accident in question had taken place due to the rashness or negligence of motor cyclist. Accordingly, Issue No. 1 is decided against the petitioners and in favour of the respondents.
11. No doubt, petitioners failed to prove the rashness or negligence on the part of bus driver, but it has been established that the bus in question was used/involved in the accident and due to the use and involvement of the bus, motor cyclist died in the accident. Accordingly, in my opinion, petitioners have succeeded to prove their case under [SECTION] of [ACT].
Issue No.2 :
Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation, if so, for what amount and from whom?
12. Vide Notification bearing No. S.O.2022(E) dated 22.05.2018 issued by Ministry of Road Transport & Highways, Government of India, The Second Schedule is substituted as under:-
SCHEDULE FOR COMPENSATION FOR THIRD PARTY FATAL ACCIDENTS/INJURY CASES CLAIMS:
1. (a) Fatal Accident Compensation payable in case of Death shall [PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] & ors. vs. Sh. [ENTITY] & ors.
be five lakh rupees.
(b) Accidents resulting in permanent disability:
Compensation payable shall be = [` 5,00,000/- x percentage disability as per [SECTION] of the [ACT]]:
Provided that the minimum compensation in case of permanent disability of any kind shall not be less than fifty thousand rupees.
(c) Accidents resulting in minor injury:
A fixed compensation of twenty five thousands rupees shall be payable.
2. On and from the date of 1st day of January, 2019, the amount of compensation specified in the clause (a) to (c) of paragraph (1) shall stand increased by 5 per cent annually"
3. This notification shall come into form on the date of its publication in the Official Gazette.
(i) Since deceased sustained fatal injuries, case of petitioners is covered by clause 'A' as mentioned in the Notification.
(ii) The claimants shall also be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition i.e. 09.12.2016 till realization of the amount.
Apportionment of award:-
[PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] & ors. vs. Sh. [ENTITY] & ors.
13. Since, petitioner no. 3 to 5 are not financially dependent upon the income of deceased, they are not entitled for any claim. However, being the parents of the deceased petitioner no. 1 & 2 ([PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] & Sh. [ENTITY]) shall get 50% each of the award amount. Their individual share is tabulated as under:-
Name of the claimant Relation Percentage Amount with of (In ` ) deceased award amount [PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] Mother 50% 2,50,000 Sh. [ENTITY] Father 50% 2,50,000
14. DISBURSEMENT:-
(i) Statement of petitioners were recorded on 11.10.2017, in compliance of Clause 26 of [ENTITY] & Ors. Vs. [ENTITY] FAO No. 842/03 decided by Hon'ble Delhi High Court on 12.12.2014 wherein petitioner no. 1 & 2 testified that they need about ` 15,000/- each per month for their household expenses.
(ii) In view of statement of their statement, on realization of award amount, a sum of ` 50,000/- each plus entire interest be released to them from their share and the balance amount of ` 2 lac each in terms of the directions contained in [CASE NUMBER] dated December 15, 2017, shall be put in 04 fixed deposits in [PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] & ors. vs. Sh. [ENTITY] & ors.
their name in a nationalized bank of equal amount of ` 50,000/- each for a period of six months, one year, one and a half year and two years. Besides the above said amount, amount of FDRs on maturity, shall automatically be transferred in their saving account maintained in a nationalized bank near the place of their residence without the facility of cheque book and ATM card. It is clarified that the amount shall be released to them only on submitting the copy of passbook of such saving account with endorsement of the bank that no cheque book facility and ATM card has been issued or if has been issued, same has been withdrawn and same shall not be issued without the prior permission of this Tribunal. However, petitioner no. 1 & 2 shall have liberty to seek the release of ` 25,000/- each from the bank located within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal itself.
15. The above FDRs shall be prepared with the following conditions as enumerated by the Hon`ble High Court in [CASE NUMBER], titled Sobat Singh vs. Ramesh Chandra Gupta & ors and [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] & ors vs. Jaivir Singh & ors decided on December 15, 2017:-
(i) The bank shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the saving account or fixed deposit account of the victims i.e. saving bank account(s) of the claimants shall be individual saving bank account and shall not a joint account.
[PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] & ors. vs. Sh. [ENTITY] & ors.
(ii) 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 the bank to the claimants.
(iii) The monthly interest be credited by Electronic Clearing System(ECS) in the saving bank account of the claimants near the place of their residence.
(iv) The maturity amount of the FDR be credited by the ECS in the saving bank account of the claimants near the place of their residence.
(v) No loan, advance or withdrawal or premature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without the permission of the court.
(vi) The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book and/or debit card to claimants. However, in case the debit card and/cheque book have already been issued, bank shall cancel the same before the disbursement of the award amount. The bank shall debit card(s) freeze the account of claimants so that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of claimants from any other branch of the bank. The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the claimants 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 claimants shall produced the passbook with the necessary endorsement before the Tribunal for compliance.
[PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] & ors. vs. Sh. [ENTITY] & ors.
16. In compliance of the directions given by Hon`ble High court in [CASE NUMBER] dated December 15, 2017, Summary of the Award in the prescribed format-IV A is as under:-
SUMMARY OF AWARD
(i) Date of accident 07.07.201
(ii) Name of the deceased [ENTITY]
(iii) Age of the deceased 20 years
(iv) Occupation of the deceased NA
(v) Income of the deceased NA
(vi) Name, age and relationship of legal representative of deceased:
S.No. Name Age Relation 1. [PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] 34 Yr. Mother 2. Sh. [ENTITY] 37Yr Father COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION S.No. Heads Awarded by the Claims Tribunal (IN `) 7. Income of the deceased (A) 8. Less Personal expenses of the deceased (C) 9. Monthly Loss of dependency (A+B)-C= D 10. Annual Loss of dependency under 163A of M.V. 11. [ACT] 12. Total Loss of dependency
[PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] & ors. vs. Sh. [ENTITY] & ors.
13. Medical Expenses (G)
14. Add-Future Prospects (B) (40%)
15. Compensation for loss of love and affection (H)
16. Compensation for loss of consortium (I)
17. Compensation for loss of estate (J)
18. Compensation towards funeral expenses (K) 19 TOTAL COMPENSATION ` 5,00,000/-
(F + G + H + I + J + K = L)
20. RATE OF INTEREST AWARDED 9%
21. Interest amount upto to the date of 91,602 award (M) 02 Years & 13 Days
22. Total amount including interest (L + M) 5,91,602
23. Award amount released As mentioned
24. Award amount kept in FDRs As mentioned
25. Mode of disbursement of the award In the form of FDRs amount to the claimant(s). (Clause 29) as mentioned in para
26. Next Date for compliance of the award. 23.01.2019 (Clause 31) LIABILITY TO PAY:-
17. Learned counsel appearing for the insurance company contended that since deceased was fleeing away on the motor cycle after committing theft, insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation.
[PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] & ors. vs. Sh. [ENTITY] & ors.
(i) To my mind, the said contention is without any substance. Mere fact that deceased was running away after committing theft of motor cycle is not sufficient to exonerate the insurance company from its liability. In order to seek compensation under [SECTION] of [ACT] claimants have to establish that the deceased was a third party and accident was caused due to the use/involvement of the offending vehicle.
(ii) As already stated that the accident had taken place due to the use and involvement of the offending bus and indisputably, deceased was a third party to the insurer of the bus, thus I am of the considered opinion that insurance company is liable to pay compensation to the claimants.
(iii) Since the offending bus was being driven by respondent No.1 and it was registered in the name of respondent no.2 whereas same was insured with respondent no.3, all shall be jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.
(iv) In view of the aforesaid discussion, Issue No.2 is decided in favour of petitioners and against the respondents.
RELIEF:
[PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] & ors. vs. Sh. [ENTITY] & ors.
18. Since, offending vehicle was insured with respondent No.3, respondent no. 3 ([ENTITY]) is directed to deposit the award amount of ` 5,00,000/- with interest @ 9 % per annum from the date of filing of claim petition i.e. 09.12.2016 till realization of the amount with [ENTITY] of this Tribunal within 30 days under intimation to the petitioners failing which the respondent No.3 shall be liable to pay interest @ 12 % per annum for the period of delay beyond 30 days.
(i). Driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle is also directed to place on record the proof of deposit of the award amount, proof of delivery of notice in respect of deposit of the amount to the petitioners/claimants and complete detail in respect of calculation of interest etc. within 30 days from today.
(ii) A copy of this judgment be sent to respondent no.3 for compliance within the time granted.
(iii) [ENTITY] is directed to place a report on record on 23.01.2019 in the event of non-receipt/deposit of the compensation amount within the time granted.
(iv) In terms of clause 31 & 32 of the judgment titled [ENTITY] & others Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors.
decided by Hon`ble High Court on December 12, 2014, copy of this award be sent to the concerned court of Ld. [PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] & ors. vs. Sh. [ENTITY] & ors.
Metropolitan Magistrate and Secretary DLSA, Central District for information and necessary action.
(v) File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in open court on this 22nd day of December, 2018 ([ENTITY]) Judge, MACT-1 (Central), THC, Delhi/sv PAWAN Digitally signed by [ENTITY] Date: 2018.12.22 JAIN 15:51:01 +0530