Delhi District Court
Afrooja vs . Krishan Yadav on 16 February, 2012
Afrooja Vs. Krishan Yadav
1
IN THE COURT OF SHRI SANJIV JAIN : PRESIDING OFFICER : MACT02
SOUTH DISTT. : SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI.
In Suit No. 359/10
1. Smt. Afrooja (Wife)
W/o Late Shabbir Sarkar
2. Smt. Sabia (Mother)
W/o Late Tayyab Ali Sarkar
3. Master Ali Ameen (Son)
S/o Late Shabbir Sarkar
All Residents of
Vill. Madanpura, P.S. Dinhara,
Distt. Kuchh Bihar,
West Bengal
(Petitioner no.3 being represented through
natural guardian/mother Smt. Afrooja).
...... Petitioners
Versus
1. Sh. Krishan Yadav
S/o Sh. Shovit Yadav
R/o Vill. Khara, Darbhanga,
Bihar.
2. Sh. Harish Vohra
S/o Sh. Raj Kumar Vohra
R/o 125A, FF Arjun Nagar,
New Delhi.
Suit No. : 359/10 1/26
Afrooja Vs. Krishan Yadav
2
Also at
F. No.5, Sarvppriya Vihar,
New Delhi
3. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Branch office IInd Floor, Mother House 22,
Yusuf Sarai Complex, Gulmohar Enclave,
New Delhi.
.......Respondents
Date of Institution : 12.07.2005
Date of reserving of judgment/order : 30.01.2012
Date of pronouncement : 16.02.2012
J U D G M E N T :
1. Shabbir unaware of the fact that a calamity in the form of his 'untimely death' was standing at threshold of his destiny, was riding on his cycle on 23.04.05 at about 7.30 AM. This journey proved unaffordable to him as he lost his life in the same, leaving behind his wife, minor son and mother.
2. It was alleged that Shabbir sustained fatal injuries in the accident which took place with a Tanker bearing registration number DL 1G A 1562 being driven in a rash and negligent manner by respondent no.1, owned by respondent Suit No. : 359/10 2/26 Afrooja Vs. Krishan Yadav 3 no.2 and insured with respondent no. 3.
3. Subsequent thereto, wife, minor son and mother of deceased Shabbir, being his legal heirs, invoked the jurisdiction of this Tribunal by filing the present petition under Section 166 read with Section 140 of Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation against the above respondents.
4. Relevant facts necessary for adjudication and disposal of the present petition as emanating from the same, apart from those stated herein above are that:
(a) On 23.04.05 at about 7.30 AM the deceased was riding his cycle. When he reached Chhatarpur Temple turning, a tanker bearing no. DL 1G A 1562, came from Mehrauli at a high speed being driven in a rash and negligent manner and hit his cycle from behind. He fell down and received head injuries. He was removed to AIIMS by PCR Van where doctor declared him brought dead.
(b) A case was registered vide FIR no. 230/05 at Police Station Mehrauli.
Suit No. : 359/10 3/26
Afrooja Vs. Krishan Yadav 4
(c) It was stated that ِShabbir was 25 years of age He was a Sanitary fitter and earning Rs. 6,500/ p.m. He was healthy and caring for his family. He had to go a long way in his life.
(d) It was stated that due to untimely death of Shabbir, wife, minor son and mother of the deceased have been under pain and agony, since lost the affectionate company of the deceased.
(e) It is stated that petitioners be adequately compensated.
5. Notice of the petition was given to the respondents. Son of respondent no.1 appeared on 15.05.06 and submitted that respondent no.1 has expired. The LR's of respondent no.1 were impleaded vide proceedings dated 07.03.11. The respondents appeared and filed their written statements.
6. It was stated by the LR's of respondent no. 2 stated that the vehicle was owned by deceased Harish Kumar. They stated that they had checked the license of the respondent no.1 and found it genuine. Respondent no.3 admitted that the offending vehicle was insured with it vide policy no. 311502/31/05/01/00000577 in the name of Harish Vohra and it was valid from 22.04.05 to 21.04.06, however, denied the factum of the accident. Suit No. : 359/10 4/26
Afrooja Vs. Krishan Yadav 5
7. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed vide order dated 03.08.06 :
i) Whether Shabbir Sarkar sustained fatal injuries in the accident on 23.04.05 due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle no. DL 1G A 1562 on the part of R1 Krishan Yadav?
ii) To what amount of compensation, the petitioners are entitled and from whom?
iii) Relief.
8. Parties to the present petition were thereafter called upon to substantiate their case by leading evidence.
9. Petitioner no. 1 Smt. Afrooja appeared in the witness box as PW1 and filed her affidavit Ex.PW1/A wherein she reiterated the facts as averred in the petition. She also tendered the documents i.e. copy of record of criminal court, FIR, site plan, seizure memo, R.C, insurance policy of offending vehicle, postmortem report, MLC, driving license and ration card Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/9. She stated that her husband was having a sound health before the accident. There is history of longevity of life in the family of deceased. Had he not met with the accident he would have survived till the Suit No. : 359/10 5/26 Afrooja Vs. Krishan Yadav 6 age of 80 years. She also examined Sh. Afaq as PW2. He tendered his affidavit in evidence Ex.PW2/A. He stated that the accident took place in his presence. The deceased died in the accident at red light of Chhattarpur Mandir, Mehrauli on 23.04.05 when he was hit from behind. He stated that PCR Van took the deceased to AIIMS and he informed his family members. He stated that after the postmortem, the dead body was handed over to Abul Hassan. PW3 Abul Hassan stated that after the postmortem the dead body was handed over to him.
10. Respondent no.3 examined two witnesses. R3W1 Sh. B K Bhardwaj, Sr. Asstt. of the insurance company brought the computerised copy of insurance policy Ex.R3W1/A. He stated that as per the policy the driver of the vehicle must hold a valid driving license for the category of the vehicle insured. He proved the notice U/o 12 R 8 CPC Ex.R3W1/B and its postal receipts Ex.R3W1/D. He brought the original report of DTO, Mujaffarpur Ex.R3W1/D and stated that as per the report the driving license no. 165/99 was not issued from DTO, Mujaffarpur, Bihar. R3W1/2 Sh. Suresh Kumar Sinha, Distt. Transport Officer, Muzaffarpur, Bihar brought the original record of driving license no. 165/99F. He stated that as per the record it was issued in the name of Hari Prasad Yadav S/o Sh. Satya Narayan Yadav R/o Bhagwan Suit No. : 359/10 6/26 Afrooja Vs. Krishan Yadav 7 Pur, Muzaffarpur and not in the name of Kishan Yadav. He stated that the license was issued for LMV+MMV+HGV and it was valid from 15.05.99 to 15.05.02 and thereafter w.e.f. 17.07.02 to 16.07.05. He filed the copy of of the register Ex.R3W1/1.
11. I have heard the arguments advanced by Ld. Counsel Ms. Shashi Bala for insurance company and perused the documentary evidence on record.
12. My findings on the issues are as under: I S S U E N O . 1
13. 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 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 is simply to quantify the compensation which is just rational and reasonable on the basis of inquiry. 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 Suit No. : 359/10 7/26 Afrooja Vs. Krishan Yadav 8 India Assurance Co. Ltd. 2001 ACJ 421 SC.
14. PW2 has stated that the accident had occurred in his presence. He was on his scooter. He and the deceased were waiting at the red light. The deceased was on his cycle. In the meantime a Tanker came and hit the cycle of the deceased from the left side of the Tanker. He informed the PCR which took the deceased to AIIMS. He also informed the family members of the deceased who also reached the hospital where the doctor declared the deceased dead. He stated that the postmortem was conducted and the dead body was handed over to Abul Hassan, cousin brother of the deceased in his presence. He stated that the accident took place due to sheer negligence on the part of the driver of offending vehicle bearing no. DL 1G A 1562. Nothing material came in the crossexamination of PW2 to draw an inference that he did not see the accident or the accident did not take place due to rash and negligent driving of tanker by respondent no.1. In this case PW1 has filed the certified copy of the Charge Sheet U/s 173 Cr.P.C. of the case registered vide FIR 230/05 at the police station Mehrauli. Perusal of it reveals that the police had recorded the statement of eyewitness i.e. PW2, prepared the site plan, seized the tanker and the cycle and got the tanker mechanically inspected. As per the postmortem report the cause of death Suit No. : 359/10 8/26 Afrooja Vs. Krishan Yadav 9 was hemorrhagic shock due to multiple injuries caused by blunt force which could be possible in road traffic accident. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in a case titled as 2009 ACJ 287 National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pushpa Rana has held that where a petitioner files the certified copy of the criminal record showing completion of investigation, issuance of charge sheet, certified copy of the FIR, all these documents are sufficient proof to come to the conclusion that the driver was negligent.
It is therefore primafacie established that the offending Tanker i.e. DL 1G A 1562 was involved in the accident and it was being driven by respondent no.1 in a manner so rash and negligent which led to untimely death of Shabbir Sarkar. It has also come on record that respondent no. 2 was the owner of the offending vehicle and it was insured with respondent no. 3.
15. The issue no. 1 is accordingly decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
I S S U E N o . 2
16. The petitioner has claimed Rs. 20,00,000/ as compensation. In a road accident a person is entitled to compensation for the pecuniary and non Suit No. : 359/10 9/26 Afrooja Vs. Krishan Yadav 10 pecuniary damages. Let me assess the compensation which the petitioner is entitled for under different heads.
17. 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.
18. In order to calculate the amount of compensation, the sum is required to be considered under the various heads :
Suit No. : 359/10 10/26
Afrooja Vs. Krishan Yadav 11
(a) LOSS OF DEPENDENCY :
19. Petitioner No. 1 Smt. Afrooja during the course of her deposition as PW1 has stated that she being wife and the other petitioners being minor son and mother are the only legal heirs of the deceased Shabbir Sarkar. He was 25 years of age and selfemployed as Sanitary Fitter. She stated that the deceased was earning Rs. 6500/ p.m. however, no documentary proof has been filed by PW1 with respect to the income of the deceased. In the absence of any documentary evidence on record, regard is to be had to the minimum wages prevailing at the time of accident with respect to a "skilled person" as the deceased was a Sanitary Fitter.
20. Minimum wages with respect to a "skilled person" prevailing at the time of accident i.e. 23.04.05 was Rs. 3,468.90.
21. Although, there is no evidence on record with respect to future prospects, however, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled "Narender Bishal & Another V/s Sh. Ramit Singh & Ors." bearing MAC.App. No. 100708/2006 decided on 20th February 2008 had considered the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in "General Manager Kerala Transport Road Corporation V/s. Susamma Thomas" reported as 1994 ACJ 1 (SC) Suit No. : 359/10 11/26 Afrooja Vs. Krishan Yadav 12 as well as in Smt. Sarla Dixit & Ors. V/s Balwant Yadav & Ors. Reported as AIR 1996, SC1274" had held :
"As would be evident from catena of judgments of the Supreme Court, the future prospects have no correlation with the price index, inflation or denunciation of currency value. The future prospects would necessarily mean advancement in future career, earnings and progression in one's life. It could be considered by seeing, from which post a person began his career, what avenues or prospects he has while being in a particular avocation and what targets he/she would finally achieve at the end of his career. The promotional avenues, career progression, grant of selection grades etc. are some of the broad features for considering one's future prospects in one's career.
The minimum wage, in the very context of economy has a correlation with the growth and development of the nation's economy, postulating increase in the price index, reduction of purchasing power with the denunciation of currency value and consequent fixation of minimum wages giving some periodical increase so as to ensure sustenance and survival of the workman class. Keeping this in view, under no circumstance the revision of minimum wages can be treated on the same footing with the factor of future prospects.
For instance, minimum wages of unskilled workman in the year 2000 were Rs.2524/ under the Minimum Wages Act. The said minimum wages in the year 2007 for the same class of unskilled workman Suit No. : 359/10 12/26 Afrooja Vs. Krishan Yadav 13 came to be Rs.3470/ under the Act. This increase is not due to any promotion of unskilled workman or any kind of advancement in his career but the same are due to increase in price index and cost of living which are the determining factors taken into consideration for increasing the wages under the Minimum Wages Act. The nature of the job of unskilled workman will not change as the same shall remain unchanged. The same principle may be true even in the case of business or trade or other such allied activities where the future prospects of the deceased can be considered on the basis of his assets, income tax return, wealth tax return, balance sheet etc. But as far as the increase in the minimum wages is concerned the same takes into consideration the price index and the inflationary trends and the same have no correlation with the future prospects of a skilled, semiskilled or an unskilled workman."
22. Thus, future prospects are taken in the present case while calculating the dependency, which as per the Sarla Verma Vs. DTC 2009 (6) scale 129 is taken as 50 per cent of the minimum wages.
23. In the present case the deceased was married and the claimants are the wife, minor son and mother. It was held in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) that onethird is to be deducted as personal and living expenses. It was also held that while calculating the dependency, the multiplier is to be applied with Suit No. : 359/10 13/26 Afrooja Vs. Krishan Yadav 14 reference to the age of the deceased. In the present case the age of the deceased was 25 years as per the MLC and the postmortem report. Hence, a multiplier of '18' is taken for calculating the loss of dependency.
24. In view thereof, the annual income of the deceased would come to Rs.
3468.90 x 12 = Rs. 41,627/. Adding the future prospects, the annual income comes to Rs. 41,627/ + 20,813/ (50% of 41,627/) = Rs. 62,440/. After deducting onethird towards personal & living expenses, net income for calculating the loss of dependency comes to Rs. 62,440/ per annum. Using the multiplier of 18, the total loss of dependency comes to Rs. 11,23,920/ (18 x 62,440) which is rounded off as Rs. 11,24,000/.
25. I therefore, award a sum of Rs. 11,24,000/ to the petitioners towards "Loss of Dependency".
(b) LOSS OF LOVE AND AFFECTION :
26. Petitioners at this stage of their life has lost their husband/father/son on whom they were financially and emotionally dependent. Care, love and affection which they had required from the deceased can not be measured or assessed.
27. In view thereof, I award a sum of Rs. 25,000/ to the petitioners towards Suit No. : 359/10 14/26 Afrooja Vs. Krishan Yadav 15 "Loss of Love and Affection".
(c) FUNERAL EXPENSES :
28. I award a sum of Rs. 10,000/ to the petitioners on account of "Funeral Expenses".
(d) LOSS OF ESTATE :
29. I, award a sum of Rs. 10,000/ to the petitioners on account of "Loss of Estate" .
(e) LOSS OF CONSORTIUM :
30. I award a sum of Rs. 10,000/ to the petitioner no.1 on account of "Loss of Consortium".
: L I AB I L I T Y :
31. As the offending vehicle was being driven by respondent No.1 therefore, primary liability to compensate the petitioners remain with that of respondent no. 1. Since the vehicle is 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, respondent no. 3 becomes contractually liable to compensate the petitioners for the above mentioned awarded amount.
32. Ld. Counsel for the Insurance company, however, in her quest to have the Suit No. : 359/10 15/26 Afrooja Vs. Krishan Yadav 16 Insurance company exonerated of its contractual obligation contended that the offending vehicle was being driven by the driver using the fake license. She relied on the testimony of R3W1 and R3W2.
33. I have considered the submissions and perused the record.
34. It has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case titled as Lal Chand Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. reported as 2006 (3) TAC321 SC that Insurance Company has to show and prove on record that due and adequate care was not taken by the owner or owner had the knowledge that driver was not holding a valid driving license. Only in that eventuality the Insurance Company can be absolved of its contractual obligation, not otherwise.
35. R3W1 has filed the insurance policy Ex.R3W1/A and notice U/o 12 R 8 CPC Ex.R3W1/B. He has also filed original report of DTO, Mujaffarpur Ex.R3W1/D and according to which the license no. 165/99 Ex.P1/4 was not issued to respondent no.1 R3W2 has brought the original record of driving license no. 165/99F. As per which the license was issued in the name of Hari Prasad Yadav S/o Sh. Satya Narayan Yadav and not in the name of respondent no.1. It was issued for LMV+MMV+HGV. He has placed on Suit No. : 359/10 16/26 Afrooja Vs. Krishan Yadav 17 record the photocopy of the said register Ex.R3W1/1. On going through the testimony of R3W1 and R3W2, I find that the respondent no. 1 was driving the vehicle using fake license. From the record collected and witness examined from the Licensing Authority Muzaffarpur, Bihar, I am of the view that no such licence was issued by the authority in the name of respondent no. 1. Nothing material has come in the crossexamination of R3W1 and R3W2 to disbelieve them. No evidence is led on behalf of respondent no.2 to prove that he had verified the genuineness of license allegedly in possession of respondent no. 1 before giving him the Tanker to drive. As per the terms of the policy, a person must hold an effective driving license and is not disqualified from holding or obtaining such a license. This very act on the part of respondent no. 2 amounts to breach of the insurance policy. It was held in the case of Kamala Mangalal Vayani & Ors. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and others (2010) 12 SCC 488 that once a comprehensive insurance policy is admitted on or so proving any breach of insurance conditions, is on the insurer and not claimants. In the present case, the insurance company i.e. respondent no. 3 has been able to establish that the vehicle was not plying on the road in consonance with the terms of the policy. Thus, the liability to compensate the petitioners would remain with that of respondent no. 1 and LRs of respondent no. 2 i.e. Suit No. : 359/10 17/26 Afrooja Vs. Krishan Yadav 18 driver /owner of the offending vehicle jointly and severally.
36. Legislature being conscious of the magnitude of the plight of the victims of road accident have introduced the present beneficial provisions to protect the interest of third parties i.e. victims of road accident so as to enable them to claim compensation from the driver/ owner of the vehicle. Legislature in its wisdom has made it a statutory obligation of every owner to have his vehicle insured against third party risks. This has been made mandatory so that victims of road accident even after being granted compensation from the court, should not run from pillar to post to have the orders of the court executed and to facilitate them to get the same from the Insurance Company. It was held in the case of "National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Vasdev Kukreja & Ors II (2010) ACC 148" that primary liability to pay the award amount is of insurance company. In that case there was a breach of terms and conditions of the policy as there was violation as to the category of the vehicle which the driver was authorised to drive. The Hon'ble High Court directed the insurance company to pay the award and granted the recovery rights in its favour to recover the award amount from the owner of the offending vehicle.
Suit No. : 359/10 18/26
Afrooja Vs. Krishan Yadav 19
37. Balancing the "twin interest" of the Insurance Company at one hand and that of the third party i.e. petitioner for whose benefit the present legislation was brought on the statute book, it is directed that the Insurance Company shall pay the compensation awarded to the petitioner within the time given in this award and shall have the right to recover the same from respondent No. 1 and LRs of respondent No. 2 jointly and severally.
38. For the foregoing reasons, the respondent no. 3 is directed to pay compensation awarded to the petitioner and shall have the right to recover the same from respondent no. 1 and 2 jointly and severally.
39. Issue No. 2 is decided accordingly in favour of the petitioners.
R E L I E F
40. In view of my finding on issue No. 1 and 2, petitioners are entitled to the following compensation :
1) LOSS OF DEPENDENCY = Rs. 11,24,000/
2) LOSS OF LOVE AND AFFECTION = Rs. 25,000/
3) FUNERAL EXPENSES = Rs. 10,000/
4) LOSS OF ESTATE = Rs. 10,000/
Suit No. : 359/10 19/26
Afrooja Vs. Krishan Yadav
20
5) LOSS OF CONSORTIUM = Rs. 10,000/
============
TOTAL = Rs. 11,79,000/
Less : Interim award vide order
dated 03.08.2006 = Rs. 50,000/
============
TOTAL = Rs. 11,29,000/
============
41. Petitioners are thus awarded a sum of Rs. 11,29,000/ (Rs. Eleven Lakh Twenty Nine Thousand only) alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date filing of petition till realization of the amount.
: RELEASE OF THE AWARDED AMOUNT : In the share of Petitioner no.1 : (Widow of deceased)
42. A sum of Rs. 8,29,000/ alongwith the proportionate interest thereon, is awarded to petitioner no.1 being wife of deceased.
43. Out of this awarded amount, a sum of Rs. 6,00,000/ be deposited in the form of FDR in the name of petitioner no.1 in the following phased manner :
(a) A sum of Rs. 1,00,000/ for a period of 2 years
(b) A sum of Rs. 1,00,000/ for a period of 3 years.
(c) A sum of Rs. 1,00,000/ for a period of 4 years.
(d) A sum of Rs. 1,00,000/ for a period of 5 years.
Suit No. : 359/10 20/26
Afrooja Vs. Krishan Yadav 21
(e) A sum of Rs. 1,00,000/ for a period of 6 years.
(f) A sum of Rs. 1,00,000/ for a period of 7 years.
In the share of Petitioner No. 2 : (Mother of deceased)
44.A sum of Rs. 1,50,000/ alongwith the proportionate interest thereon, is awarded to petitioner no. 2, being mother of deceased.
In the share of Petitioner No. 3 : (minor son of deceased)
45. A sum of Rs. 1,50,000/ alongwith proportionate interest thereon, is awarded to petitioner no. 3 being minor son of the deceased. This awarded amount shall be kept in the form of separate FDR's in the name of Petitioner No. 3 till he attain 18 years of age.
Deposition of awarded amount with STATE BANK OF INDIA, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi.
46. 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 08.06.20009, UCO Bank/ State Bank of India has agreed to open a Special Fixed Deposit Account for the victims of road accidents. Suit No. : 359/10 21/26
Afrooja Vs. Krishan Yadav 22
47. 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 claimants.
48. 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 petitioners with State Bank of India, Saket Courts Complex Branch, against account of petitioners.
within a period of 45 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).
49. 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. Suit No. : 359/10 22/26
Afrooja Vs. Krishan Yadav 23
(ii) Withdrawal from the aforesaid account shall be permitted to claimants / petitioners after due verification and the Bank shall issue photo identity Card to claimants / petitioners to facilitate identity.
(iii) No cheque book be issued to claimants / petitioners 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 claimants / petitioners alongwith the photocopy of the FDR's .
(v) The original fixed deposit receipts shall be handed over to claimants / petitioners 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.
(vii)Half yearly statement of account be filed by the Bank in this Court.
(viii)On the request of claimants / petitioners, the Bank shall transfer the Suit No. : 359/10 23/26 Afrooja Vs. Krishan Yadav 24 Savings Account to any other branch of State Bank of India, according to their convenience.
(ix) Claimants / petitioners 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 RESPONDENT NO.3, INSURANCE COMPANY
50. The Respondents no. 3 is directed to file the compliance report of their having deposited the awarded amount with State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch in this tribunal within a period of 45 days from today.
51. The Respondents no. 3 is directed to furnish a copy of this award alongwith the cheques of the awarded amount to the Manager of State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch, so as to facilitate the Manager of State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch to have the identification of the claimants/ petitioners in whose favour the award has been passed.
52. The Respondent no. 3 is further directed to furnish the claim petition Suit No. : 359/10 24/26 Afrooja Vs. Krishan Yadav 25 number and name of the parties at the back side of the cheques of the awarded amount, so that the same be not misplaced.
53. The Respondents no. 3 shall intimate to the claimants / petitioners about their 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.
54. 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.
55. Copy of this Award / Judgment be given to counsel for the Insurance Company for necessary compliance.
56. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court
on 16th Day of February, 2012 (SANJIV JAIN )
Presiding Officer : MACTII
South Distt. : Saket Courts
New Delhi : 16.02.2012
Suit No. : 359/10 25/26
Afrooja Vs. Krishan Yadav
26
Afrooja Vs. Krishan Yadav
Suit No. 359/10
16.02.12
Present: None.
Vide separate order of even date a compensation of Rs. 11,29,000/ (Rs. Eleven Lakh Twenty Nine Thousand only) with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of petition till realization of the amount is passed in favour of petitioners.
Copy of the award be given to the parties.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(SANJIV JAIN ) Presiding Officer : MACTII South Distt. : Saket Courts New Delhi : 16.02.2012 Suit No. : 359/10 26/26