Delhi District Court
Unique Case Id No.02406C0421112 vs Suit Nos.677/2010 & 503/211 (Mukesh Sah ... on 1 December, 2012
IN THE COURT OF MS. NIRJA BHATIA :
PRESIDING OFFICER: MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL :
SOUTH-EAST DISTRICT : SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI
Suit No.677/2010
Unique Case ID No.02406C0421112010
Fatal Case (Bachelor) :
1 Shri Mukesh Sah Son of late Shri Ram Charan Sah (father)
2 Smt.Pritam Devi Wife of Shri Mukesh Sah (mother)
Both residents of :
i) Village & PO Chhoti Bhaisdira, PS Barari, District Katihar, Bihar.
ii) 4/2232, Gali No.2, Bihari Colony, PS Farsh Bazar, Delhi-32.
......Petitioners
Suit No.503/2011
Unique Case ID No.02406C0166852011
Fatal Case (Bachelor) :
1 Shri Gyan Chand Son of Shri Itwar Chand (father)
2 Smt.Purnima Devi Wife of Shri Gyan Chand(mother)
Both residents of :
17, Malikpur Village, Model Town-I, New Delhi.
......Petitioners
VERSUS
Suit Nos.677/2010 & 503/211 (Mukesh Sah & Gyan Chand. Vs. Saurav Yadav etc.) Page 1 of 20
1 Saurav Yadav @ Sunny Son of Suresh Babu, (driver)
Resident of :
i) Vill.Nangla Natha, PS Aasipur, PO Mirihach, Distt.Etta, UP
ii) 24/3, Loni Road, Katori Mill, Mohan Nagar,
Sahibabad, Ghaziabad, UP.
2 Divya Arora Wife of Kuldip Kumar Arora (owner)
R/o 784, Pocket-1, Paschim Puri, New Delhi-110063.
3 IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Limited,
IFFCO Sadan Centre, District Centre, Saket, New Delhi-110017.
.....Respondents
----------------------------
Date of institution : 26.11.2010
Date of reserving the judgment : 01.12.2012
Date of pronouncement : 01.12.2012
-------------------------------
AWARD
By this common judgment, I shall decide the two claim petitions, bearing No.677/2010, titled Mukesh Sah etc. Versus Saurav Yadav etc. and No.503/2011, titled Gyan Chand Versus Saurav Yadav etc., emerging out of the same accident for deciding the question of awarding the compensation filed by way of present petition under Section 166 read with Section 140 of MV Act, 1988 as amended up to date (hereinafter referred as Act), arising out of a fatal case.
2 The relevant circumstances behind the claim petitions are that on 10.10.2010 at about 1.30 AM while deceased Naveen was plying the motorcycle, bearing registration No.DL 7S AN-7245 (TVS) on which the other Suit Nos.677/2010 & 503/211 (Mukesh Sah & Gyan Chand. Vs. Saurav Yadav etc.) Page 2 of 20 deceased, Manish Kumar was the pillion rider and as they were going from Chhattarpur temple to Kalkaji temple for Darshan and had reached at outer ring road near Masjid Moth, Nehru Place carriageway, when suddenly the motorcycle numbered above was hit by a speeding Ford Ikon, bearing registration No.DL 4C R-3862, being plied by its driver, Saurav Yadav, allegedly in rash and negligent manner. It is claimed that at the time of accident, the speed of the offending vehicle was so high that it forcibly hit the motorcycle as a result of which both the deceased persons fell on the road and suffered grievous injuries. They were initially removed to Escorts Hospital, however, the doctors referred them to Safdarjung Hospital. Both the injured persons were thereafter taken to Safdarjung Hospital where deceased Manish succumbed to the injuries on 11.10.2010 and the other injured Naveen met with fatal end on 24.10.2010.
3 The petitioners who have filed their separate claim petitions, have claimed that both the deceased persons were employed and were contributing their income to the family. It is averred that consequent to loss of life of above-named victims, their families have suffered immensely. Compensation on account of loss of dependency, loss of love and affection as well as on other heads such as expenses for treatment and funeral, have been prayed.
4 The replies have been filed by the respondents. The driver, Saurav Yadav has denied the liability claiming that at the time of accident, he was house-helper of the owner, Divya Arora and had not been involved in the accident. He claimed that at the time of accident, he was neither plying the vehicle nor was involved in the accident. The owner did not cause appearance and was proceeded ex-parte. The insurance company filed the reply and took the defence that since the driver had been challened for having Suit Nos.677/2010 & 503/211 (Mukesh Sah & Gyan Chand. Vs. Saurav Yadav etc.) Page 3 of 20 caused the accident under Section 185 MV Act due to rash and negligent driving, the insurance company was not willing to settle the matter. 5 The issues were framed vide orders dated 8.7.2011 and 2.8.2011 respectively to the following extent :
Issues in Petition titled, Mukesh Sah etc. Vs. Saurav Yadav etc. 1 Whether the petitioner (should be deceased) received grievous (should be fatal) injuries in the accident which took place on 10.10.2010 at 1.30 PM (should be 1.30 AM) involving vehicle car, bearing No.DL 4C R-3862 due to rash and negligent driving of 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 to claim and from whom? 3 Relief.
Issues in Petition titled, Gyan Chand etc. Vs. Saurav Yadav etc. 1 Whether the deceased suffered fatal injuries in the accident which took place on 10.10.2010 at 1.30 AM in the night involving Ford Ikon Car, bearing No.DL 4C R-3862 due to rash and negligent driving of R-1, owned by R-2 and insured with R-3? OPP 2 Whether the petitioners are liable for compensation? If so, to what amount and against which of the respondents?
3 Relief.
6 Thereafter, the parties were asked to lead their respective evidence. The petitioners have tendered their respective examination Suit Nos.677/2010 & 503/211 (Mukesh Sah & Gyan Chand. Vs. Saurav Yadav etc.) Page 4 of 20 affidavits and were cross-examined. The eye-witness, Harender at whose instance the FIR is lodged, has also deposed whereafter the PE was closed.
The erring driver, Saurav Yadav tendered his examination affidavit in RE and had been cross-examined. The insurance company summoned the IO and also led the evidence through its official, Shri Abhishek whereafter RE was also closed. Arguments have been addressed by the learned counsels for the parties. I have heard the same and have carefully gone through the record of the case. I now proceed to record my findings on the issues, as below :
ISSUE NO.1 : NEGLIGENCE 7 Since, the DAR is registered as claim petition under Section 166 MV Act, it was incumbent upon the petitioners to establish the factum of negligence attributable to the erring driver, Saurav Yadav, in plying the offending Ford Ikon Car, bearing registration No.DL 4C R-3862, rashly and negligently. The petitioners have relied upon the statement made by the eye-
witness, Harender. The eye-witness being the friend of both the deceased persons, had been following the deceased on his own motorcycle as it is reported that all of them were going during Navratra from Chhattarpur temple to Kalkaji temple after having worshipped the deity at Chhattarpur temple. It is reported that at about 12.00 midnight, the deceased started on their motorcycle and the complainant Harender followed them on his motorcycle on which one more friend, Monu was also sitting. When they reached at the outer ring road at about 1.30 and were slightly ahead of Chirag Delhi flyover, the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver, Saurav Yadav who was plying the Ford Ikon, bearing registration No.DL 4C R-3862. Immediately after the accident, the driver was nabbed by the eye-witness. He reported that he smelled alcohol. As the accident caused loud noise, one police official, Const.Janak Raj of PS CR Park also came to the spot after Suit Nos.677/2010 & 503/211 (Mukesh Sah & Gyan Chand. Vs. Saurav Yadav etc.) Page 5 of 20 hearing the same. The erring driver then was taken for medical examination. The IO also reached on hearing the information of the accident. When he reached the hospital, the erring driver was also present against MLC which was got conducted through Const.Deep Chand, he was smelling of alcohol. The above fact clearly shows that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving which was to a great extent reflective of dangerous driving against the driver, Saurav Yadav. The driver, Saurav Yadav who has disputed his presence as well as his involvement in the accident, has not brought any independent witness to support his presence elsewhere. He had claimed that he was employed as house-helper, however, he has neither produced the owner under whom he involved as a house-helper nor has filed any other document to show his salary being received against the household work. Further, he is nabbed from the spot of accident and not only the independent eye-witness has been actively involved in his apprehension but also the police official, Const.Janak Raj has also been present who apprehended him from the spot. Consequently, his medical examination has also been conducted. It is not explained that if the driver was not present at the spot, under what circumstances he was taken to the hospital for the MLC and as to why no protest was raised by him against the act of the police. 8 Further, the driver has admitted that the IO has concluded the investigation against him and consequent to charge-sheet, even the learned MM has proceeded to opine his rashness by framing charge against him. In such circumstances, I am of the view that as the IO conducted the investigation and has also brought on record the arrest memo and the MLC to show the involvement of the driver as well, the mechanical inspection report to show the involvement of the offending vehicle besides other material, sufficient documents have been placed on record to reflect upon the Suit Nos.677/2010 & 503/211 (Mukesh Sah & Gyan Chand. Vs. Saurav Yadav etc.) Page 6 of 20 involvement of the driver as well as the offending vehicle in the accident due to rashness on behalf of the erring driver, Saurav Yadav. 9 Even otherwise, it is pertinent to observe that the degree of proof required for proving the negligence on the part of the driver in the present proceedings, is not as vigorous as is required in proving the guilt of the accused in criminal trial. The intent of the present legislation is benevolent and the entire purpose of the legislation is likely to be defeated if in each case the petitioner is asked to prove beyond reasonable doubt the involvement and negligence on the part of the driver. In reaching to the above opinion, I am guided by the judgment of Kaushnuma Begum and others Versus New India Assurance Limited, 2001 ACJ 421 SC as well as the case reported as National Insurance Company Limited Versus Pushpa Rana, 2009 ACJ 289, wherein it is held that mere involvement of a vehicle is sufficient to establish and hold the claim petition to be maintainable. It is held that even the certified copy of charge-sheet may not be asked for if the petitioner is able to satisfy on record the involvement of the offending vehicle through the copy of FIR and the mechanical inspection report. The issue hence, is decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents. ISSUE NO.2 : COMPENSATION :
LOSS OF DEPENDENCY Claim in respect of petitioners, Mukesh Sah etc.
10 The deceased Manish reportedly was working under one Neeraj Jain. The IO during the process of filing the DAR, has collected one verification showing that he was a daily wager. The counsel for the insurance company, Shri Brijesh Bagga tried to reflect that the deceased cannot be considered to be employed and he was a student, however, it is to observed that deceased belong to a lower strata of society where all the members of Suit Nos.677/2010 & 503/211 (Mukesh Sah & Gyan Chand. Vs. Saurav Yadav etc.) Page 7 of 20 the family are forced to contribute to the family income for day to day survival. The deceased is shown to be 8th passed in the year, 2004. Since, he was maintaining good health, his employment is to be presumed more so, in view of the verification conducted by the IO whose investigation and verification has not been put to challenge, it is presumed that the deceased was commanding income equivalent to that of unskilled labourer @ Rs.5,278/- per month, being a daily wager.
11 In view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled, Santosh Devi Versus National Insurance Company Ltd. and others in Civil Appeal No.3723 of 2012 passed on 23.4.2012, inflation @ 30% are also awarded to the petitioners as it is apparent from the statement of the witness that they were providing periodic increase in the salary of the deceased with the increase in the rate of inflation. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under :
"In our view, it will be naive to say that the wages or total emoluments/income of a person who is self- employed or who is employed on a fixed salary without provision for annual increment etc., would remain the same throughout his life. The rise in the cost of living affects everyone across the board. It does not make any distinction between rich and poor. As a matter of fact, the effect of rise in prices which directly impacts the cost of living is minimal on the rich and maximum on those who are self-employed or who get fixed income/emoluments. They are the worst affected people. Therefore, they put extra efforts to generate additional income necessary for sustaining their families."
It has also been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that :
"Although, the wages/income of those employed in unorganized sectors has not registered a corresponding increase and has not kept pace with the increase in the salaries of the Government Suit Nos.677/2010 & 503/211 (Mukesh Sah & Gyan Chand. Vs. Saurav Yadav etc.) Page 8 of 20 employees and those employed in private sectors but it cannot be denied that there has been incremental enhancement in the income of those who are self-employed and even those engaged on daily basis, monthly basis or even seasonal basis. We can take judicial notice of the fact that with a view to meet the challenges posed by high cost of living, the persons falling in the latter category periodically increase the cost of their labour .............. it would be reasonable to say that a person who is self-employed or is engaged on fixed wages will also get 30 percent increase in his total income over a period of time and if he/she becomes victim of accident then the same formula deserves to be applied for calculating the amount of compensation."
Being guided by the judgment above, amount of 30% is added in the income of the deceased and is calculated as under :
5,278 X 30% = 1,583.40 5,278 + 1,583.40 = 6,861.40 rounded off to Rs.6,861/-
Deductions It be observed that at the time of his demise, as per birth certificate, the deceased was bachelor, aged about 19 years (date of birth being 4.8.1991). Having regard to the above and in view of the judgment of passed in Sarla Verma Versus DTC (supra), deductions on account of personal expenses @ 50% are to be made from the dependency. To get the actual dependency of the LRs of the deceased, the following formula is adopted :
6,861 divided by 2 = 3,430.50 6,861 - 3,430.50 = 3,430.50 rounded off to Rs.3,431/-Suit Nos.677/2010 & 503/211 (Mukesh Sah & Gyan Chand. Vs. Saurav Yadav etc.) Page 9 of 20
For calculating the yearly dependency of the LRs of the deceased, the amount is to be multiplied with 12 and therefore, the yearly dependency comes to Rs.3,431 X 12 = Rs.41,172/-.
Thus, the actual yearly dependency of the petitioners is assessed as Rs.41,172/- which the deceased would have contributed to the family, had he remained alive.
Multiplier It has come on record that the deceased was aged about 19 years (date of birth being 4.8.1991). Therefore, in view of the law laid down in Amrit Bhanu Shali & others Versus National Insurance Company Ltd. and others in Civil Appeal No.3397 of 2012 arising out of SLP (C) No. 27751 of 2011 decided on 4.4.2012, the maximum multiplier of '18' is taken to assess the loss of dependency of the deceased. Hence, total loss of dependency of the LR of the deceased is assessed as 41,172 X 18 = 7,41,096/- The award on account of dependency for the above amount is passed.
FUNERAL EXPENSES
12 The petitioners on record, have not filed any document on account of expenses of funeral of the deceased, Manish Kumar. However, it is presumed that an amount of Rs.10,000/- at least may have been spent on the last rites of the deceased. The amount of Rs.10,000/- is hence, awarded on account of funeral expenses.
LOVE & AFFECTION 13 The deceased left behind his parents, namely, Shri Mukesh Sah and Smt.Pritam Devi. The Hon'ble High Court in para 8 of the case titled, Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co.Ltd. Versus Ram Kumar etc. Suit Nos.677/2010 & 503/211 (Mukesh Sah & Gyan Chand. Vs. Saurav Yadav etc.) Page 10 of 20 in MAC App.No.757/2011 decided on 19.7.2012, has made following observations regarding awarding love & affection :
"It is urged that the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- awarded towards loss of love and affection is excessive. Normally, when full compensation towards loss of dependency is granted only a nominal sum is awarded towards loss of love and affection. The trend of the High Court and the Supreme Court is to grant a sum of Rs. 25,000/- under this head. Such a sum was granted by the Supreme Court in Sunil Sharma V. Bachitar Singh (2011) 11 SCC 425 and in Baby Radhika Gupta V. Oriental Insurance Company Limited (2009) 17 SCC 627 towards love and affection. However, in a later judgment in Amrit Bhanu Shali & Ors. Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. (2012) 6 SCALE 1, in case of a death of bachelor, a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- was awarded by the Supreme Court. In the circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere in the award of a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards love and affection."
In view of the observations made above, the petitioners are awarded Rs.50,000/- each, total amounting to Rs.1,00,000/- towards towards love and affection.
LOSS OF ESTATE 14 In view of the circumstances detailed above, the petitioners are also entitled for loss of estate in respect of death of Manish Kumar. Accordingly, an amount of Rs.10,000/- is passed in favour of the petitioners towards loss of estate.
The total compensation is assessed as under :-
Loss of Dependency Rs.7,41,096/-
Funeral Expenses Rs. 10,000/-
Love & Affection Rs.1,00,000/-
Loss of Estate Rs. 10,000/-
Total Rs.8,61,096/-
Suit Nos.677/2010 & 503/211 (Mukesh Sah & Gyan Chand. Vs. Saurav Yadav etc.) Page 11 of 20
Hence, the petitioners are awarded a total amount of Rs. 8,61,096/-.
Claim in respect of petitioners, Gyan Chand etc. LOSS OF DEPENDENCY 15 The deceased was initially reported to be working with M/s.Snow Met Industries at Libaspur, however, the petitioners could not bring any such material. The IO also conducted the verification, however, it was reported that the deceased was not employed with the above named company but was found to be employed with one Krishna Chaitanya Charitable Hospital. It is shown that he was commanding Rs.5,000/- per month therefrom. The deceased is reported to be 20 years of age. In such circumstances, his income @ Rs.5,000/- is assessed, just around the income of unskilled labourer according to Minimum Wages Act.
16 In view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled, Santosh Devi Versus National Insurance Company Ltd. and others in Civil Appeal No.3723 of 2012 passed on 23.4.2012, inflation @ 30% are also awarded to the petitioners as it is apparent from the statement of the witness that they were providing periodic increase in the salary of the deceased with the increase in the rate of inflation. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under :
"In our view, it will be naive to say that the wages or total emoluments/income of a person who is self- employed or who is employed on a fixed salary without provision for annual increment etc., would remain the same throughout his life. The rise in the cost of living affects everyone across the board. It does not make any distinction between rich and poor. As a matter of fact, the effect of rise in prices which directly impacts the cost of living is minimal on the Suit Nos.677/2010 & 503/211 (Mukesh Sah & Gyan Chand. Vs. Saurav Yadav etc.) Page 12 of 20 rich and maximum on those who are self-employed or who get fixed income/emoluments. They are the worst affected people. Therefore, they put extra efforts to generate additional income necessary for sustaining their families."
It has also been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that :
"Although, the wages/income of those employed in unorganized sectors has not registered a corresponding increase and has not kept pace with the increase in the salaries of the Government employees and those employed in private sectors but it cannot be denied that there has been incremental enhancement in the income of those who are self-employed and even those engaged on daily basis, monthly basis or even seasonal basis. We can take judicial notice of the fact that with a view to meet the challenges posed by high cost of living, the persons falling in the latter category periodically increase the cost of their labour .............. it would be reasonable to say that a person who is self-employed or is engaged on fixed wages will also get 30 percent increase in his total income over a period of time and if he/she becomes victim of accident then the same formula deserves to be applied for calculating the amount of compensation."
Being guided by the judgment above, amount of 30% is added in the income of the deceased and is calculated as under :
5,000 X 30% = 1,500/-
5,000 + 1,500 = 6,500/-
Deductions It be observed that at the time of his demise, the deceased was bachelor, aged about 20 years, year of birth being 1989 as per copy of ration card. Having regard to the above and in view of the judgment of passed in Sarla Verma Versus DTC (supra), deductions on account of personal Suit Nos.677/2010 & 503/211 (Mukesh Sah & Gyan Chand. Vs. Saurav Yadav etc.) Page 13 of 20 expenses @ 50% are to be made from the dependency. To get the actual dependency of the LRs of the deceased, the following formula is adopted :
6,500 divided by 2 = 3,250/-
6,500 - 3,250 = 3,250/-
For calculating the yearly dependency of the LRs of the deceased, the amount is to be multiplied with 12 and therefore, the yearly dependency comes to Rs.3,250 X 12 = Rs.39,000/-
Thus, the actual yearly dependency of the petitioners is assessed as Rs.39,000/- which the deceased would have contributed to the family, had he remained alive.
Multiplier It has come on record that the deceased was aged about 20 years. Therefore, in view of the law laid down in Amrit Bhanu Shali & others Versus National Insurance Company Ltd. and others in Civil Appeal No. 3397 of 2012 arising out of SLP (C) No.27751 of 2011 decided on 4.4.2012, the maximum multiplier of '18' is taken to assess the loss of dependency of the deceased. Hence, total loss of dependency of the LR of the deceased is assessed as 39,000 X 18 = 7,02,000/- The award on account of dependency for the above amount is passed. FUNERAL EXPENSES
17 The petitioners on record, have not filed any document on account of expenses of funeral of the deceased, Naveen. However, it is presumed that an amount of Rs.10,000/- at least may have been spent on the last rites of the deceased. The amount of Rs.10,000/- is hence, awarded on account of funeral expenses.
Suit Nos.677/2010 & 503/211 (Mukesh Sah & Gyan Chand. Vs. Saurav Yadav etc.) Page 14 of 20LOVE & AFFECTION 18 The deceased left behind his parents, namely, Shri Gyan Chand and Smt.Purnima Devi. The Hon'ble High Court in para 8 of the case titled, Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co.Ltd. Versus Ram Kumar etc. in MAC App.No.757/2011 decided on 19.7.2012, has made following observations regarding awarding love & affection :
"It is urged that the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- awarded towards loss of love and affection is excessive. Normally, when full compensation towards loss of dependency is granted only a nominal sum is awarded towards loss of love and affection. The trend of the High Court and the Supreme Court is to grant a sum of Rs. 25,000/- under this head. Such a sum was granted by the Supreme Court in Sunil Sharma V. Bachitar Singh (2011) 11 SCC 425 and in Baby Radhika Gupta V. Oriental Insurance Company Limited (2009) 17 SCC 627 towards love and affection. However, in a later judgment in Amrit Bhanu Shali & Ors. Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. (2012) 6 SCALE 1, in case of a death of bachelor, a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- was awarded by the Supreme Court. In the circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere in the award of a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards love and affection."
In view of the observations made above, the petitioners are awarded Rs.50,000/- each, total amounting to Rs.1,00,000/- towards towards love and affection.
LOSS OF ESTATE 19 In view of the circumstances detailed above, the petitioners are also entitled for loss of estate in respect of death of Naveen. Accordingly, an amount of Rs.10,000/- is passed in favour of the petitioners towards loss of estate.
Suit Nos.677/2010 & 503/211 (Mukesh Sah & Gyan Chand. Vs. Saurav Yadav etc.) Page 15 of 20The total compensation is assessed as under :-
Loss of Dependency Rs.7,02,000/-
Funeral Expenses Rs. 10,000/-
Love & Affection Rs.1,00,000/-
Loss of Estate Rs. 10,000/-
Total Rs.8,22,000/-
Hence, the petitioners are awarded a total amount of Rs. 8,22,000/-.
RELIEF 20 I hereby award an amount of Rs.8,61,096/- in respect of petitioners, Mukesh Sah etc. and an amount of Rs.8,20,000/- in respect of petitioners, Gyan Chand etc. as compensation with interest @ 9% per annum, including interim award, if any, from the date of filing the present petition, i.e., 26.11.2010 till the date of realisation of the amount, in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
21 The driver, R-1 is the principal tort feasor whereas R-2 and R-3, being the owner and the Insurance company, are the joint tort feasors, and are vicariously liable for the acts of the driver. 22 The insurance company has denied the liability claiming that the offending vehicle was being driven in contravention to the traffic rules. The witness, Abhishek on behalf of the insurance company as well as the IO, SI Satbir Singh have been examined in pursuance thereof. However, it be observed that it is a settled law that the driving of the vehicle in inebriated condition would at the maximum attract the penalty against the driver for having contravened the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act and would entail penal consequence. The owner and/or the insurance company cannot avoid the liability on the above since the above does not fall within the periphery of the defences available to the insurance company under Section 147 MV Act.
Suit Nos.677/2010 & 503/211 (Mukesh Sah & Gyan Chand. Vs. Saurav Yadav etc.) Page 16 of 20The insurance company hence, is directed to make the payment of the award amounts.
23 Hence, the Insurance company is directed to deposit the award amounts within 30 days from today along with interest @ 9% per annum, failing which it shall be liable to pay penal interest @ 12% per annum.
24 In the judgment of Union of India and others Versus Nansari and others, MACA 682/2005, decided on 13.1.2010, which has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in order dated 17.12.2009 in SLP (Civil) No.11801-11804/2005, the Hon'ble High Court have given directions for the protection of the award amount. In view of the aforesaid judgment, it is directed that out of the above awarded amount of Rs.8,61,096/- (Rupees eight lac sixty one thousand and ninety six only), in favour of parents of deceased Manish Kumar, 40% of the amount, i.e., Rs.3,44,438/- (Rupees three lac forty four thousand four hundred and thirty eight only) be imparted in favour of petitioner No.1, being father of the deceased, namely, Shri Mukesh Sah and the remaining 60% of the amount, i.e.,Rs.5,16,658/- (Rupees five lac sixteen thousand six hundred and fifty eight only) be imparted in favour of petitioner No.2, being mother of the deceased, namely, Smt.Pritam Devi.
25 It is also directed that out of the amounts awarded in favour of the parents of deceased Manish Kumar, amounts of Rs.94,438/- (Rupees ninety four thousand four hundred and thirty eight only) in favour of father and Rs.66,658/- (Rupees sixty six thousand six hundred and fifty eight only) in favour of mother of deceased, be released immediately on its realisation. 26 It is further directed that out of the above awarded amount of Rs. 8,22,000/- (Rupees eight lac twenty two thousand only), in favour of parents of deceased Naveen, 40% of the amount, i.e., Rs.3,28,800/- (Rupees three Suit Nos.677/2010 & 503/211 (Mukesh Sah & Gyan Chand. Vs. Saurav Yadav etc.) Page 17 of 20 lac twenty eight thousand eight hundred only) be imparted in favour of petitioner No.1, being father of the deceased, namely, Shri Gyan Chand and the remaining 60% of the amount, i.e.,Rs.4,93,200/- (Rupees four lac ninety three thousand and two hundred only) be imparted in favour of petitioner No. 2, being mother of the deceased, namely, Smt.Purnima Devi. 27 It is also directed that out of the amounts awarded in favour of the parents of deceased Naveen, amounts of Rs.78,800/- (Rupees seventy eight thousand eight hundred only) in favour of father and Rs.93,200/- (Rupees ninety three thousand and two hundred only) in favour of mother of deceased, be released immediately on its realisation. 28 The remaining amounts of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees two lac fifty thousand only) and Rs.4,50,000/- (Rupees four lac fifty thousand only) respectively, awarded in favour of parents of deceased Manish Kumar, and the remaining amounts of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees two lac fifty thousand only and Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees four lac only) awarded in favour of parents of deceased, Naveen, be kept in the State Bank of India by way of FDRs for five years in their accounts, Shri Mukesh Sah & Smt.Pritam Devi (parents of deceased Manish Kumar) and Shri Gyan Chand & Smt.Purnima Devi (parents of deceased Naveen), separately. The petitioners may approach Shri H.S.Rawat, Nodal Officer (Mobile No.09717044322), State Bank of India for opening of the accounts after receiving the copy of the award, whereafter the amount of the petitioners shall be released to them as under : 29 20% of the FDRs amount be released to them after one year, along with proportionate costs.
30 20% of the FDRs amount be released to them in the second year, along with proportionate costs.
Suit Nos.677/2010 & 503/211 (Mukesh Sah & Gyan Chand. Vs. Saurav Yadav etc.) Page 18 of 2031 20% of the FDRs amount be released to them in the third year, along with proportionate costs.
32 20% of the FDRs amount be released to them in the fourth year, along with proportionate costs.
33 The remaining amount of 20% of the FDRs be released to the petitioners in the fifth year, along with proportionate costs. The original FDRs be kept with the bank which shall issue a photo identity cards to the petitioners to ascertain their identity. The copy of the award shall be given to the parties.
34 It is directed that the FDRs so deposited with the bank, be renewed automatically and the interest thereupon shall be paid monthly, which shall be credited automatically in the savings account of the petitioners. The original FDRs be detained by the bank in safe custody. However, the original passbook shall be issued and given to the petitioners along with the photocopy of the FDRs. The bank is directed to hand over the original FDRs on afflux of time and shall issue the photo identity card to the petitioners to facilitate the withdrawal after due verification. It is further directed that no cheque books shall be issued to the petitioners without the permission of this court.
35 It is also directed that the insurance company shall make an endorsement of the title of the case, suit number, name of the parties and other relevant details while depositing the cheques in the bank. The compliance be made by all concerned.
36 Copy of the judgment be placed in the file of Suit No.503/2011, titled Gyan Chand etc. Versus Saurav Yadav etc. Suit Nos.677/2010 & 503/211 (Mukesh Sah & Gyan Chand. Vs. Saurav Yadav etc.) Page 19 of 20 37 Copy of the order shall be kept for receiving the compliance. File be consigned to the record room after completion of necessary formalities.
Announced in open Court ( NIRJA BHATIA )
Dated : 1.12.2012 PO : MACT-02, (SE)
Saket Courts, New Delhi
Suit Nos.677/2010 & 503/211 (Mukesh Sah & Gyan Chand. Vs. Saurav Yadav etc.) Page 20 of 20