IN THE COURT OF SH.

SANJAY KUMAR, ADJ TIS HAZARI

COURT, DELHI
LAC NO.

OF 2006

IN THE MATTER OF:

H. V .KUMAR AND Ors.
Petitioners

Versus
UNION OF INDIA & Anr.

Respondents

N.D.O.H.: 07.01.2016
AWARD NO. 01/DCW/2004-05
WRITTEN STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE
RESPONDENT NO.2 / DMRC
PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS:
That there is no cause of action in the present Suit under reply
against answering defendant, hence; need to be rejected under
Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C.
That the suit of plaintiff is not maintainable because the suit is
time barred and beyond limitation period .
1. That it is respectfully submitted that the present suit has been
filed without the compliance of the mandatory provisions of the
section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure which is mandatory and
without which the suit is liable to be dismissed with costs. That it
is respectfully submitted that Section 80(1) of the Code requires
prior notice of two months to be served on the Government as a
condition for filing a suit except when there is urgency for interim

order in which case the court may not insist on the rigid rule of
prior notice. The two months' period has been provided for so that
the Government shall examine the claim put up in the notice and
has sufficient time to send a suitable reply. The underlying object
is to curtail litigation. The object is also to curtail the area of
dispute and controversy. Similar provisions also exist in various
other legislations as well. Wherever the statutory provision requires
service of notice as a condition precedent for filing of suit and
prescribed period therefore, it is not only necessary for the
Governments or departments or other statutory bodies to send a
reply to such a notice but it is further necessary to properly deal
with all material points and issues raised in the notice. Thus in the
instant case no notice was ever served or any averment has been
made to that effect of the compliance of the provisions of the
section 80 CPC which is mandatory. Thus, the result is that the
object underlying Section 80 of the Code and similar provisions got
defeated and has led to this avoidable litigation resulting in heavy
expenses and costs to the exchequer as well. Had the plaintiffs
would served the notice and a proper reply by defendant no1 could
have resolved the instant issue after knowing the stand of the
defendant no.1

That the claim petition under reply is not maintainable and liable
to be dismissed on this count alone as the petitioner has failed to

furnish any evidence showing negligence

on the part of Delhi

Metro & in respect of the relief claimed by him.

REPLY ON MERIT
That the contents of paragraphs 1 to 2 are matter of record and
hence

need no reply. However the plaintiff may kindly be put

to strict

thereof

That the contents of Para 3 & 4 are denied. The contents of para
3

&

4 are factually incorrect hence denied . it is submitted that

DMRC is not joint venture with Era Infra Engineering Ltd instead
Defendant -2 / Mertostroy-Era is a contractor of Defendant No-1
/DMRC
That the contents of paragraphs 5 to 6 are wrong and false hence
denied . It is respectfully submitted that if the deceased was going
toward Sant Paramand Hospital , as per traffic rule he should be
on

the left side of the road (One way terrific from Kashmiri gate

toward

Sant Paramand Hospital ) where no DMRC is going on . it

show that

plaintiff is not approached this Honble court with clean

hand and

suppressed /molded the facts of the case in order to get

undue

monetary benefit from DMRC

The contents of para 6 to 15 are denied it is further submits that the

contents of para 6 to 15 the present plaint are denied as wrong being
misconceived and bereft of merits. Nothing in the reference should be
deemed to have been admitted by the answering respondent unless
specially admitted herein. However the content pertaining to matter of

record not denied and the petitioner may kindly be put to strict proof
thereof .

It is submiited that DMRC had executed contract with Mertostray

Era Jv for the construction of metro line from Ex- Jama Masjid to
Kasmiri gate dead end . The said construction work was carried
out by DMRCs contractor M/S Mertostroy-Era JV. The safety and
security at the working site are sole responsibility of the
Contractor

i.e.

Mertostroy-Era

JV.

That

Delhi

Metro

Rail

Corporation has nothing to do with the payment of compensation

to

the

petitioner

as

Mertostroy-Era

JV

i.e.

contractor

is

responsible for all the mishappening occurred at construction

sites during the course of construction. The contractor is liable to
make payment in case of any liability is fixed by this Honble Court
.

That the contentions of ground 12 to 13 are denied in totality and each

and every averment is irrelevant and not in accordance with law,
hence need no reply. It is submitted that determination of
market value by the Ld. LAC is absolutely correct , reasonable
and based on fact , circumstance and available documents. It is
further stated that the value of compensation is not on the lower
side and as such no enhancement is warranted in the present
case. it is further submitted that the market value has been
assessed correctly , which represent the true and correct market
value of the property and is not based on surmise and contrary
to the actual surrounding circumstance . As such, award is not
required to be challenged. The award is as per law; hence the
reference petition is liable to be dismissed on this count alone.
14-17

That the contents of paragraphs 14 to 17 are matter of record

and

hence need no reply from Respondent No. 2. However the

petitioner may kindly be put to strict thereof

18

That the contents of Para 18 are wrong and denied. It is submitted

that present reference petition is considerable time barred and
this petition has been filed before the Honble court after the
expiry of two years . Hence the present petition is liable to be
dismissed on this ground alone

Prayer

clause

of

the

reference

petition

as

prayed for is wrong, false, baseless and as such

is most emphatically denied. It is submitted that
the petitioner is not entitled to any relief as
prayed for
In

the

submits

light
that

of

aforesaid

the

contents

observation
of

the

it

is

present

reference petition are denied as wrong being

misconceived and bereft of merits. Nothing in
the reference should be deemed to have been
admitted by the answering respondent unless
specially admitted herein. However the content
pertaining to matter of record not denied and
the petitioner may kindly be put to strict proof
thereof .

PRAYER:
It is stated that in view of the abovementioned
Preliminary Objections and the Parawise Reply on
Merits submitted by the Respondent , this Honble
Court be graciously pleased to dismiss the said
reference petition with exemplary costs.

RESPONDENT

VERIFICATION:
Verified at New Delhi on this

day of Jan 2016 that

the contents of the Preliminary Objections and of

paras 1 to 25 of the Parawise Reply on Merits are
true and correct to my knowledge and belief and with
respect to the available official

records.

Nothing

false has been stated therein or material concealed

therefrom.

THROUGH

Respondent

[A.S.RAO]
ASSISTANT LAW
OFFICER
DELHI METRO RAIL CORPERATION
LTD ,NEW DELHI

7 Jan 2016

IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJAY KUMAR, ADJ TIS HAZARI

COURT, DELHI

LAC NO.

OF 2006

IN THE MATTER OF:

H. V .KUMAR AND Ors.

Petitioners

Versus
UNION OF INDIA & Anr.

Respondents

INDEX
S.
NO.
1

PARTICULARS
WRITTEN STATEMENTON THE BEHALF OF
RESPONDENT NO.2/DMRC

PAGE
NO.
16

FILED BY:

[A.S.RAO ]

Jan 07,

ASSISTANT LAW OFFICER

DELHI METRO RAIL CORPERATION
LTD ,NEW DELHI

2016

IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJAY KUMAR, ADJ TIS HAZARI

COURT, DELHI

LAC NO.

OF 2006

IN THE MATTER OF:

H. V .KUMAR AND Ors.

Petitioners

Versus
UNION OF INDIA & Anr.

Respondents

AFFIDAVIT

I, A.S. Rao , aged 49 Years, S/o Late Sh. A.V. Rao,

Assistant Law Officer

Delhi Metro Rail Corporation,

having its registered office at Metro Bhawan, Fire

Brigade Lane, Barakambha Road, New Delhi,110001 do
hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under:
1. That the Deponent is Assistant Law Officer of Delhi
Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., well conversant with the
facts

and

the

circumstances

of

the

case

and

therefore competent to swear this Affidavit.

2. That I have gone through the contents of the
accompanying Written Statement and that the
same are true and correct to my knowledge.

VERIFICATION:
I, A.S.Rao , the Deponent above named do hereby verify
on solemn affirmation on .day of January , 2016 at
Delhi that the contents of Para 1 to of my foregoing
affidavit are true to my knowledge and based on the
official records, no part of it false and nothing material
has been concealed there from.

DEPONENT

10

11