Delhi District Court
Priyanka Bhatia @ Priyanka Arora vs . Sompal Singh on 28 January, 2014
Priyanka Bhatia @ Priyanka Arora Vs. Sompal Singh
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJIV JAIN : PRESIDING OFFICER : MACT
SOUTH DISTRICT : SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI
In Petition No. : 93/12
Unique Case ID : 02406C0100442012
1. Priyanka Bhatia @ Priyanka Arora
W/o Late Hemant Bhatia ..... Wife
2. Devansh Bhatia
S/o Late Hemant Bhatia ..... Son
through his natural guardian/mother
Mrs. Priyanka Bhatia
3. Sumitra Bhatia
W/o Late Gulshan Kumar Bhatia ..... Mother
All R/o D47, B K Dutt Colony,
Karbala, PS Lodhi Colony,
New Delhi - 110 003
..... Petitioners
Versus
1. Sompal Singh
S/o Sh. Hari Singh
R/o Chandi Ghat,
Haridwar, Uttrakhand ..... Driver
2. Mukesh Kumar
S/o Sh. Chandra Prakash
R/o Rani Gali, Bhupatwala, Haridwar ..... Owner
3. National Insurance Co. Ltd.
D.O. Haridwar
R.O.II, 2E/9, Jhandewalan Ext.
New Delhi ..... Insurer
..... Respondents
Petition No. : 93/12 Page No. 1 of 21
Priyanka Bhatia @ Priyanka Arora Vs. Sompal Singh
Date of Institution : 25.04.2012
Date of reserving of judgment/order : 09.01.2014
Date of pronouncement : 28.01.2014
J U D G M E N T :
1. Mrs. Priyanka Bhatia and others being the legal heirs of the deceased Hemant Bhatia filed the petition u/s 166 & 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for claiming compensation for untimely death of Hemant Bhatia in an accident on 19.12.2011 at about 1.00 AM at Jwalapur near Hari Kripa Petrol Pump, Haridwar Uttrakhand of which a case was registered vide FIR 381/11.
2. The case of the petitioners in brief is that on the aforesaid date, Hemant Bhatia alongwith his friends was going to Haridwar in Ford Fiesta car bearing no. UA 08 7899. He was on front seat by the side of driver. It was being driven by Ajay Magan. At about 1.00 AM when the car reached in front of Hari Kripa Petrol Pump, Jwalapur, all of a sudden a Mahindra Tractor bearing no. UA 08 E 9784 came from front at a high speed being driven rashly and negligently by the respondent no.1 and struck against the car. As a result of impact, Hemant Bhatia died on the spot. His friends Ajay Makan and Ravi Baliyan sustained injuries. They were taken to Govt. Hospital at Haridwar where postmortem of the deceased was conducted. Petition No. : 93/12 Page No. 2 of 21
Priyanka Bhatia @ Priyanka Arora Vs. Sompal Singh Deceased was 32 years of age. He had been running his business in the name of H B Overseas. He used to earn Rs. 30,000/ p.m. He was survived by his wife, a minor son and old aged mother who were financially dependent on the deceased. Respondent no.2 was the owner of the Mahindra Tractor and it was insured with respondent no.3.
3. Notice of the petition was given to the respondents.
4. All the respondents appeared and filed their written statements. Respondent no.1 and 2 denied the averments made in the petition, however, admitted that police report was lodged against the Tractor bearing no. UA 08 E 9784 which was owned by Mukesh Kumar. They stated that the Tractor was being driven at a moderate speed and was on its side and it was the car which was being driven rashly and negligently. It came on the wrong lane and hit the Tractor. Respondent no.3 admitted the policy no. 462200/31/11/6300004968 in the name of respondent no.2 for the period from 16.12.11 to 15.12.12 in respect of the offending vehicle but denied the averments made in the petition and its liability.
5. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed vide order dated 30.10.12 :
1. Whether Hemant died of injuries in an accident on 19.12.2011 at Petition No. : 93/12 Page No. 3 of 21 Priyanka Bhatia @ Priyanka Arora Vs. Sompal Singh about 1.00 AM at Jwalapur near Hari Kripa Petrol Pump, Haridwar, Uttrakhand due to rash and negligent driving of Mahindra Tractor Model 2005 bearing no. UA 08 E 9784 by R1, vehicle owned by R2 and insured with R3?
2. If so, what amount of compensation petitioner is entitled to and from whom?
3. Relief.
6. To substantiate their claim, petitioners examined Smt. Sumitra Bhatia as PW1, Ravi Baliyan as PW2, Sh. Kalyan Chand Clerk cum Cashier Indian Overseas Bank as PW3 and Sh. Lal Bahadur Shah, Sr. Tax Assistant Income Tax Department as PW4.
In defence respondent no.2 examined himself as RW2. Respondent no.3 examined its Administrative Officer Sh. Rajesh Ranjan as R3W1 and Sh. Rajender Behera Jr. Assistant ARTO, Haridwar as R3W2.
7. I have heard the arguments advanced by Ld. counsel for the petitioners, Sh.
Gigi C George for respondent no.1 and 2 and Sh. P S Tomar for respondent no.3 and gone through the entire evidence on record. My findings on the issues are as follows :
I S S U E NO. 1
8. It is well settled law that where petition under Section 166 of the Act is instituted, it becomes the duty of the petitioner to establish rash and Petition No. : 93/12 Page No. 4 of 21 Priyanka Bhatia @ Priyanka Arora Vs. Sompal Singh negligent driving. To prove rash and negligent driving in a petition under Motor Vehicles Act, Tribunal need not go into the technicality because strict rules of procedure and evidence are not followed. Basically, in road accident cases, Tribunal has simply to quantify the compensation which is just rational and reasonable on the basis of enquiry. The proceedings under Motor Vehicles Act are not akin to the proceedings in a civil suit. Further, roving enquiry is not required to prove the rashness and negligence on the part of the driver as has been held in Kaushumma Begum and others Vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 2001 ACJ 421 SC.
9. PW2 who has claimed to have been travelling with the deceased at the time of accident has stated that on 19.12.2011 they were going to Haridwar from Bahadur Garh in Ford Fiesta car no. UA 08 7899. It was being driven by Ajay. Deceased Hemant Bhatia was sitting on the left side on the front seat. The car was at a normal speed. At about 1.00 AM, when it reached in front of Hari Kripa Petrol Pump, Jwalapur, Haridwar, suddenly a Mahindra Tractor no. UA 08 E 9784 came from the front side at a high speed being driven rashly and negligently by the respondent no.1 and struck against the car. As a result thereof, Hemant Bhatia died on the spot. He and Ajay Magar sustained injuries. He stated that there was no divider on the road. He was on the rear seat of the car. He denied that Ajay Magar had consumed liquor. He denied that the accident had occurred due to negligence of the car driver. Petition No. : 93/12 Page No. 5 of 21
Priyanka Bhatia @ Priyanka Arora Vs. Sompal Singh PW1 tendered her affidavit stating that her son died in the accident at Jwalapur due to rash and negligent driving of the Tractor by the respondent no.1. She filed the death certificate Ex.PW1/2, Form 23 of the vehicle Ex.PW1/3, driving licence of respondent no.1 Ex.PW1/8, copy of the policy Ex.PW1/9, certified copy of the charge sheet containing the FIR, site plan, postmortem report etc. Ex.PW1/10.
10. On perusal of the documents placed with the charge sheet, I find that the case was registered against the respondent no.1, driver of the Tractor on the statement of Sunil Chaturvedi. He had stated that the Tractor was being driven rashly and negligently and it had hit the car from front. Site plan also corroborates the testimony of PW2. It shows that as the Tractor had come on the side of the car when it hit the car from front. As per the postmortem report, the cause of death was hemorrhage and shock due to antemortem injuries.
In the instant case PW2 was subjected to detailed crossexamination but I find his testimony consistent and cogent. It is also supported with the documents filed with the petition. He has categorically stated that it was the Tractor came on the wrong side and hit the car from front and it was being driven rashly and negligently.
11. It is thus, established that Hemant Bhatia died due to the injuries sustained Petition No. : 93/12 Page No. 6 of 21 Priyanka Bhatia @ Priyanka Arora Vs. Sompal Singh in the accident due to rash and negligent driving of the Mahindra Tractor bearing no. UA 08 E 9784 by the respondent no.1. It is admitted position on record that the Tractor was owned by respondent on.2 and it was insured with respondent no.3.
12. Issue no.1 is accordingly decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
I S S U E NO. 2
13. It has been held in a catena of judgments that emphasis in cases of personal injury and fatal accident should be on awarding substantial, just and fair compensation and not a token amount. General principle in calculating such sum of compensation, should be so as to put the injured or legal heirs of a deceased in case of fatal accident, in the same position as he would have been, if accident had not taken place. The amount of compensation no doubt cannot bring back the dead but it certainly helps the LR's and dependents to live life with dignity and comfort as they were living during the lifetime of the deceased. The amount of compensation is awarded on the basis of age, the earning capacity and other liabilities of the deceased. The appropriate method of calculating compensation in fatal cases is multiplier method. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in plethora of judgments has laid down that in India, the multiplier method is proper for calculation of compensation. Petition No. : 93/12 Page No. 7 of 21
Priyanka Bhatia @ Priyanka Arora Vs. Sompal Singh
14. In order to calculate the amount of compensation, the sum is required to be considered under the various heads :
LOSS OF DEPENDENCY
15. PW1 has stated that the deceased was possessing sound health and physique. He was not addicted to any vice nor was suffering from any ailments. The longevity in the family of the deceased is upto the age of 80 years. Had he not expired, he would have remained alive upto the age of 80 years and would have provided great services to the society as well as to the family members. He was running business of printing machines in the name of M/s HB Overseas and earning Rs. 30,000/ p.m. His business was prospering as his income was increasing year to year and it would have become more than double. He was survived by his wife, one minor son and old aged mother. PW4 brought the income tax return of the deceased for the assessment year 2008 to 2010 as per which his income in the assessment year 200809 was 1,37,350/ on which he paid Rs. 2949/ as tax. The petitioners had filed the bank statement which shows that the deceased have been maintaining the account in the name of HB Overseas. In the assessment year 200809, his income was Rs. 1,37,350/. In the assessment year 200910, his income was Rs. 2,44,107/ on which he paid tax of Rs. 9837/. The net annual income of the deceased after deducting tax comes to Rs. 2,34,270/. From the returns filed by the deceased, I find Petition No. : 93/12 Page No. 8 of 21 Priyanka Bhatia @ Priyanka Arora Vs. Sompal Singh that there was increase in his income. PW1 has stated that her son was energetic and he had good prospects to excel in his career. Keeping in view these facts, I am of the view that future prospects are to be added for calculating the loss of dependency. In the case of Rajesh & Ors. Vs. Rajbir Singh & Ors. 2013 (6) Scale 563 it was held as under :
Since, the Court in Santosh Devi Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. Manu/SC/0322/2012, actually intended to follow the principle in the case of salaried persons as laid in Sarla Verma Vs. DTC 2009(6) Scale 129 and to make it applicable also to the selfemployed and persons on fixed wages, it is clarified that the increase in the case of those groups is not 30% always; it will also have a reference to the age. In other words, in the case of selfemployed or persons with fixed wages, in case, the deceased victim was below 40 years, there must be an addition of 50% to the actual income of the deceased while computing future prospects. Needless to say that the actual income should be income after paying the tax, if any. Additional should be 30% in case the deceased was in the age group of 40 to 50 years.
16. In the case of ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Angrej Singh & Ors. MAC App. No. 846/2011 the Hon'ble High Court in its judgment dated 30.09.2013 considered the case of Sarla Verma Vs. DTC 2009 (6) Scale 129, Santosh Devi Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. Manu/SC/0322/2012, Reshma Kumari & Ors. Vs. Madan Mohan & Ors. 2013 (5) Scale and Rajesh & Ors. Vs. Rajbir Singh & Ors. 2013 (6) Scale 563, Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community and Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr. Vohra Community & Anr. (2005) 2 SCC 673 and Petition No. : 93/12 Page No. 9 of 21 Priyanka Bhatia @ Priyanka Arora Vs. Sompal Singh held as under :
"In view of the above, this Court is guided by the legal principles as set out in Reshma Kumari and Rajesh in order to assess the just compensation as it is envisaged in Section 168 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. In Reshma Kumar, the Apex Court affirmed the findings of Sarla Verma; and in Rajesh, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has agreed with the dictum of Santosh Devi. Specifically, for the assessment of future prospects in respect of the persons falling under the category of selfemployment/fixed wages this court is guided by the dictum laid down in Rajesh. In my considered opinion, there is no contradiction in the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of Reshma Kumari and Rajesh.
17. The Hon'ble High Court has also referred the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Raja Ram decided by this Court on 25.08.09 in MAC App. 175/2006 and case of Sajha Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. 2010 ACJ 627 whereby it was held that schedule of minimum wages show wages slightly increases from time to time after every six months; and within next 10 years wages would have become double. Therefore, the increase in the wages has to be taken into consideration while assessing the compensation on account of future prospects. It was held that in view of the dictum laid down in Rajesh (Supra), the Trial Court / Tribunal has rightly added 50% towards future prospects. In that case the petitioner was self employed i.e. an electrician.
Petition No. : 93/12 Page No. 10 of 21
Priyanka Bhatia @ Priyanka Arora Vs. Sompal Singh
18. Following the case law (supra), in the present case also the deceased was selfemployed. The petitioner no.1 placed on record the Election Icard of the deceased Ex.PW1/4. As per which he was 27 years of age as on 01.01.08. So, he was above 30 years of age at the time of accident. Therefore, 50% are to be added to the income of the deceased for computing future prospects. Adding the future prospects, the annual income comes to Rs. 2,34,270 + 1,17,135 (50% of Rs. 2,34,270/) = Rs. 3,51,405/. In the present case there are three dependents. After deducting onethird towards personal and living expenses, the net income for calculating the loss of dependency comes to Rs. 2,34,270/. It was also held in the case of Sarla Verma Vs. DTC 2009 (6) Scale 129 that while calculating the dependency, the multiplier is to be applied with reference to the age of the deceased since he was married. Hence, a multiplier of '16' is taken for calculating the loss of dependency. Using the multiplier of '16', the total loss of dependency comes to Rs. 2,34,270 x 16 = 37,48,320/ which is rounded off to Rs. 37,48,400/. I therefore, award Rs. 37,48,400/ to the petitioners towards "Loss of Dependency".
LOVE AND AFFECTION :
19. Petitioners at this stage of their life lost their husband/father/son. The love and care which they could have got from him cannot be measured in terms of money. In view of the law laid down in Rajesh & Ors. Vs. Rajbir Singh & Petition No. : 93/12 Page No. 11 of 21 Priyanka Bhatia @ Priyanka Arora Vs. Sompal Singh Ors. 2013 (6) Scale 563, I award Rs. 1,00,000/ to the petitioners towards "Love and Affection".
LOSS OF CONSORTIUM :
20. It was held in the case "Rajesh & Ors. Vs. Rajbir Singh & Ors. 2013 (6) Scale 563" (Supra) that in legal parlance, consortium is the right of the spouse to the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, society, solace, affection and sexual relations with his or her mate. The loss of companionship, love, care and protection etc, the spouse is entitled to get, has to be compensated appropriately. It was held that it would only be just and reasonable that the Courts award at least Rs. 1,00,000/ for the loss of consortium. Following the case law (Supra), I award a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/ to the petitioner no.1 i.e. wife of the deceased towards "Loss of Consortium".
FUNERAL EXPENSES :
21. It was held in the case of "Rajesh & Ors. Vs. Rajbir Singh & Ors. 2013 (6) Scale 563" that the funeral expenses does not mean the fee paid in the Crematorium or fee paid for the use of space in the Cemetery. There are many other expenses in connection with the funeral and if the deceased is follower of any particular religion, there are several religious practices and conventions pursuant to death in a family. All those are quite expense. It will Petition No. : 93/12 Page No. 12 of 21 Priyanka Bhatia @ Priyanka Arora Vs. Sompal Singh be just, fair and equitable under the head of funeral expenses in the absence of evidence to the contrary for higher expenses, to award at least an amount of Rs. 25,000/. Following the case law (Supra), I award Rs. 25,000/ to the petitioners towards "Funeral Expenses".
LOSS OF ESTATE :
22. I award a sum of Rs. 10,000/ to the petitioners towards "Loss of Estate".
23. The total compensation in favour of the petitioners is calculated as under :
1) LOSS OF DEPENDENCY = Rs. 37,48,400/
2) LOSS OF LOVE AND AFFECTION = Rs. 1,00,000/
3) LOSS OF CONSORTIUM = Rs. 25,000/
4) FUNERAL EXPENSES = Rs. 25,000/
5) LOSS OF ESTATE = Rs. 10,000/ ============= Rs. 39,08,400/ ============= L I A B I L I T Y
24. As the offending vehicle was being driven by respondent no. 1 therefore, primary liability to compensate the petitioners remains with that of respondent no. 1. Since the offending vehicle was also owned by respondent no. 2 so, he is vicariously liable to compensate the petitioners.
It is an admitted position on record that the vehicle was insured with respondent no.3, therefore, it becomes contractually liable to compensate Petition No. : 93/12 Page No. 13 of 21 Priyanka Bhatia @ Priyanka Arora Vs. Sompal Singh the petitioners for the above mentioned amount.
25. Ld. counsel for respondent no.3 in order to exonerate the respondent no.3 of its liability contended that trolley was attached with the tractor at the time of accident and being a goods carrying vehicle it must have a valid permit but in the instant case, the respondent no.2 did not produce the fitness and the permit despite notice u/o 12 R 8 CPC. Even the fitness was not valid on the date of accident Ex.R3W1/6. He also referred the testimony of R3W1 and R3W2.
26. Ld. counsel for the respondent no.1 and 2 on the contrary argued that the respondent no.1 had a valid driving licence. The permit and the policy in respect of the offending vehicle was valid. Trolley was not fitted with the Tractor at the time of accident so, the question of fitness does not arise. The trolley was not involved in the accident and further trolley has separate number from the tractor.
27. I have considered the submissions.
28. R3W2 who brought the record regarding fitness and permit of the tractor stated that fitness in respect of the tractor was valid from 19.06.10 to 18.06.11 and it was renewed from 10.02.12 to 09.02.13. The fitness was not valid on Petition No. : 93/12 Page No. 14 of 21 Priyanka Bhatia @ Priyanka Arora Vs. Sompal Singh 19.12.11. He proved the report Ex.R3W2/1. He stated that the permit was valid from 25.03.11 to 24.03.16 for Dehradun region excluding hills and Haridwar falls under Dehradun region. He proved the permit Ex.R3W2/2.
RW2 who is the owner of the Tractor has stated that on 19.12.11 the Tractor was going to the workshop for repair. It was empty. No trolley was attached to it. It had a valid permit and the driver was having a valid licence. He denied that at the time of accident the tractor was not going for repair and the trolley was attached to the tractor.
29. From the testimony of R3W2, I find that the Tractor was registered with the trolley. The number of the tractor was UA 08 E 9784 and that of the trolley was UA 08 E 9785. The permit was valid from 25.03.11 to 24.03.16. The Tractor had a fitness from 19.06.10 to 18.06.11 and from 10.02.12 to 09.02.13. The accident took place on 19.12.11 meaning thereby that the fitness in respect of the tractor was not valid on the date of accident. The testimony of RW2 is very categorical on this point. He has stated that at that time, the Tractor was being taken to workshop for repair. No goods were loaded in the Tractor. The trolley was not attached with the Tractor. The charge sheet placed by the petitioner does not indicate that the tractor at that time was loaded or it was fitted with the trolley. Further, no evidence contrary to the facts stated by the RW2 has been led by the respondent no.3. R3W1 has stated on the basis of the information given to him. He has stated that he Petition No. : 93/12 Page No. 15 of 21 Priyanka Bhatia @ Priyanka Arora Vs. Sompal Singh does not have any personal knowledge of this case. No information was collected by the respondent no.3 from the IO whether it was loaded or it was fitted with the trolley. R3W1 has relied on the report of the Investigator without calling him in the witness box to stand at the anvil of cross examination. It was held in the case of National Insurance Company Vs. Swaran Singh & Ors 1 (2004) CLT 1 (SC) that to avoid its liability towards insured, the insurer has to prove that the insured was guilty of negligence and failed to exercise reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling the conditions of policy regarding the use of vehicles by duly licensed driver or one who was not disqualified to drive at the relevant time.
30. On considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that though on the date of accident, the Tractor did not have a valid fitness but it was going to the workshop for repair. It was empty. No trolley was fitted with the Tractor. So, there was no willful violation of the terms and conditions of the policy by the respondent no.2 i.e. owner of the offending vehicle. Liability is therefore of the respondent no.3 to compensate the petitioners.
31. Issue No. 2 is accordingly decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondent no. 3.
Petition No. : 93/12 Page No. 16 of 21
Priyanka Bhatia @ Priyanka Arora Vs. Sompal Singh R E L I E F
32. In view of my findings on issues, I award a sum of Rs. 39,08,400/ (Rs.
Thirty Nine Lacs Eight Thousand Four Hundred only) to the petitioners as compensation with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the petition till realisation of the amount.
: RELEASE OF THE AWARDED AMOUNT : In the share of Petitioner No. 1 : (Wife of the deceased)
33. A sum of Rs. 35,08,400/ alongwith the proportionate interest thereon, is awarded to the petitioner no. 1 being wife of the deceased. Out of this awarded amount, a sum of Rs. 30,00,000/ be deposited in the form of FDR in the name of petitioner no. 1 in the following phased manner :
1. Rs. 5,00,000/ for a period of 2 years.
2. Rs. 5,00,000/ for a period of 4 years.
3. Rs. 5,00,000/ for a period of 6 years.
4. Rs. 5,00,000/ for a period of 8 years.
5. Rs. 5,00,000/ for a period of 10 years.
6. Rs. 5,00,000/ for a period of 12 years.
In the share of Petitioner No. 2 : (Minor son of the deceased)
34. A sum of Rs. 2,00,000/ alongwith proportionate interest thereon, is awarded to petitioner no. 2 being minor son of the deceased. The amount of the petitioner no. 2 be kept in the form of FDRs till they attain the age of 18 years.
Petition No. : 93/12 Page No. 17 of 21
Priyanka Bhatia @ Priyanka Arora Vs. Sompal Singh In the share of Petitioner No. 3: (Mother of the deceased)
35. A sum of Rs. 2,00,000/ alongwith proportionate interest thereon, is awarded to petitioner no. 3 being mother of the deceased.
Deposition of awarded amount with STATE BANK OF INDIA, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi.
36. In terms of the directions given by Hon'ble High Court in case titled "Rajesh Tyagi Vs. Jaibir Singh and Ors." bearing FAO number 842/2003 decided on 08.06.2009, UCO Bank/ State Bank of India has agreed to open a Special Fixed Deposit Account for the victims of road accidents.
37. As per orders of Hon'ble High Court in case titled " New India Assurance Co. Ltd Vs. Ganga Devi & Ors bearing MAC. App. 135/2008" as well as in another case titled as " Union of India V/s Nanisiri" bearing M.A.C. Appeal No. 682/2005 dated 13.01.2010, directions were given to the Claims Tribunal to deposit part of the awarded amount in fixed deposit in a phased manner depending upon the financial status and financial needs of the petitioners.
38. In consonance to the idea by which part of the awarded amount is ordered to be kept in fixed deposit / savings account by Hon'ble High Court, Insurance Company is directed to deposit the awarded amount in favour of the Petition No. : 93/12 Page No. 18 of 21 Priyanka Bhatia @ Priyanka Arora Vs. Sompal Singh claimants with State Bank of India, Saket Courts Complex Branch, against account of petitioners.
within a period of 30 days from today, failing which respondent no. 3 Insurance Company shall be liable to pay future interest @ 12% per annum till realization (for the delayed period).
39. Upon the aforesaid amount being deposited, the State Bank of India, Saket Court Complex, New Delhi, is directed to keep the awarded amount in the "fixed deposit / saving account'' in the following manner:
(i) The interest on the fixed deposit be paid to the petitioners / claimants by Automatic Credit of interest of their saving bank accounts with State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi.
(ii) Withdrawal from the aforesaid account shall be permitted to petitioners / claimants after due verification and the Bank shall issue photo identity Card to claimants / claimants to facilitate identity.
(iii) No cheque book be issued to petitioners / claimants without the permission of this Court.
(iv) The original fixed deposit receipts shall be retained by the Bank in safe custody. However, the original Pass Book shall be given to the petitioners / claimants alongwith the photocopy of the FDR's .
(v) The original fixed deposit receipts shall be handed over to petitioners / claimants at the end of the fixed deposit period.
(vi) No loan, advance or withdrawal shall be allowed on the said fixed deposit receipts without the permission of this Court. Petition No. : 93/12 Page No. 19 of 21
Priyanka Bhatia @ Priyanka Arora Vs. Sompal Singh
(vii)Half yearly statement of account be filed by the Bank in this Court.
(viii)On the request of petitioners / claimants, the Bank shall transfer the Savings Account to any other branch of State Bank of India, according to their convenience.
(ix) Petitioners / claimants shall furnish all the relevant documents for opening of the Saving Bank Account and Fixed Deposit Account to Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Saket Courts Complex Branch, New Delhi.
DIRECTIONS FOR THE RESPONDENT NO. 3
40. Respondent no. 3 is directed to file the compliance report of its having deposited the awarded amount with State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch in this Tribunal within a period of 30 days from today.
41. The Respondent no. 3 shall intimate to the petitioners about its having deposited the cheques in favor of the petitioners in terms of the award, at the address of the petitioners mentioned at the title of the award, so as to facilitate them to withdraw the same.
42. Copy of this award / judgment be given to the petitioners who are directed to furnish the same to the Manager of State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch for necessary compliance after their having received the notice of the deposit of awarded amount from the Insurance company.
Petition No. : 93/12 Page No. 20 of 21
Priyanka Bhatia @ Priyanka Arora Vs. Sompal Singh
43. The case is now fixed for compliance by the insurance company for 03.03.2014.
Announced in the open court
on 28th Day of January, 2014 (SANJIV JAIN)
Presiding Officer : MACT
South Distt. : Saket Courts
New Delhi : 28.01.2014
Petition No. : 93/12 Page No. 21 of 21