Delhi District Court
Rachna & Ors. vs . Jai Kumar & Ors. on 3 June, 2023
IN THE COURT OF MS. REKHA, PO MACT01 (SOUTH
WEST DISTRICT), DWARKA COURTS: NEW DELHI
MACP No. : 1248/2016
FIR No.71/2016
PS Dwarka South
Rachna & Ors. Vs. Jai Kumar & Ors.
CNR No. DLSW010021742016
1. Ms. Rachna (Wife)
W/o Late Sh.Jaideep
2. Baby Joyal (daughter)
D/o Late Sh.Jaideep
All R/o RZ2698, 4th Floor,
Gali No. 29, Tughlakabad Extension,
Kalkaji, South Delhi
... Petitioners
VERUS
1. Sh. Jai Kumar (driver)
S/o Sh. Har Kishan,
R/o VPO Tikri Kalan,
New Delhi
2. Depot Manager (Owner)
Millennium Park Depot4
Delhi Transport Corporation Depot
New Delhi
3. United India Insurance Company Ltd.
8th Floor, Kanchanjunga Building
Barakhamba Road,
New Delhi110001
MACP No 1248/2016 Rachna & Ors. Vs. Jai Kumar & Ors. 1
... Respondents
Date of institution - 09.05.2016
Date of judgment - 03.06.2023
JUDGMENT
1. The present petition is filed qua death of deceased Jaideep caused in a road accident which took place on 03.02.2016.
2. CLAIM:
The brief facts in narrow compass, relevant and necessary for the disposal of the present petition are that on 03.02.2016 at about 8.50 AM, the deceased Jaideep was driving his cab bearing registration no. UP16BT6084, carrying the passengers from Noida and was going to Najafgrah to drop them. When, the deceased was in the process to cross the green light, the driver of the DTC bus bearing no. DL1PC9175 (hereinafter referred as offending vehicle) which was going ahead the deceased's vehicle, applied sudden brakes during yellow light due to which the cab of the deceased struck behind the offending bus, resultantly, the deceased received grievous bloodless injury on his chest and became unconscious. He was removed from the cab and was taken to DDU Hospital, where he was declared brought MACP No 1248/2016 Rachna & Ors. Vs. Jai Kumar & Ors. 2 dead and subsequently, his postmortem was conducted in DDU Hospital, Hari Nagar.
Regarding the abovesaid accident FIR bearing no. 71/16, U/s 279/304A IPC, PS Dwarka South was registered.
Petitioner no.1 is the wife, petitioner no.2 is the infant daughter and petitioner no.3 and 4 are the parents of deceased.
It is also stated that the time of accident, deceased was aged about 27 years and he working as a driver with Skyline Travel Company, Sector132 ETT Tower, Noida, U. P and earning an amount of Rs.16,000/ per month.
The deceased is survived by his wife, one minor child and his old age parents and all the petitioners were totally dependents upon the income of the deceased.
It is also stated that this accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Respondent No1 who applied his brake in yellow light which caused fatal accident resulting into the death of deceased.
The respondent no.1 was driving the offending vehicle under the supervision of R2 and the offending vehicle was insured with R3 such as all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners.
It has been prayed that an award for a sum of Rs. 50,00,000/(Rs. Fifty Lacs only/) may be passed in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
MACP No 1248/2016 Rachna & Ors. Vs. Jai Kumar & Ors. 3
3. DEFENCE:
Joint Written Statement filed on behalf of R1 and R2 in which allegations levelled in the petition have been denied and certain preliminary objections have been taken. It is stated that there was no negligence on the part of the answering respondent.
The alleged accident never took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the answering respondent and the offending vehicle is duly insured with United India Insurance Company Ltd. It is also stated that the amount of compensation claimed in the present petition is vague, excessive, unjustified, exaggerated and unteanable in the eye of law and there is prayer for dismissal of present petition with cost.
Written Statement filed on behalf of Insurance Company in which it is stated that as per record available with the answering respondent, the offending vehicle bearing No. DL1PC9157 was insured vide policy no.
0411003115P103520079 was insured by the answering respondent in the name of Delhi Transport Corporation R2 for period from 19.06.2015 to 18.06.2016 but the same is subject to terms and conditions of the policy.
It is stated that the present petition has been filed in collusion between claimant and respondent no.1 and 2.
There is a prayer for dismissal of present petition MACP No 1248/2016 Rachna & Ors. Vs. Jai Kumar & Ors. 4 with cost.
4. ISSUES:
On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:
1. Whether Jaideep sustained fatal injuries in a motor vehicle accident dated 03.12.2016 due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bus no. DL1PC 9157 being driven by R1 Jai Kumar, owned by R2 DTC and insured by respondent no. 3 United India Insurance Co. Ltd.?...OPP
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation, if so, what amount and from whom ?...OPP
3. Relief.
It is to note here that on an application u/o 1 Rule 10 CPC, name of parents of deceased had been ordered to be deleted from array of parties vide order dated 23.02.2022.
5. PETITIONER EVIDENCE:
To prove their case, the petitionerRachna got examined herself as Petitioner's Witness01 (in short, MACP No 1248/2016 Rachna & Ors. Vs. Jai Kumar & Ors. 5 PW1) who tendered her evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A and relied upon MarkX1 i.e. photocopy of driving license of deceased, MarkX2 i.e. copy of chargesheet, Mark X3 i.e. photocopy of site plan, Mark X4 i.e. photocopy of notice U/s 133 M. V. Act, Mark X5 i.e. photocopy of postmortem report, Mark X6 i.e. photocopy of MLC of the deceased, MarkX7 and 8 i.e. photocopy of mechanical inspection report of both the vehicles.
Petitioner also got examined Sh.Sikander Yadav as Petitioner's Witness02(in short, PW2) who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW2/A. PW2 relied upon PW2/1 i.e. photocopy of his election card, Ex.PW2/2 i.e. photocopy of RC and Ex.PW2/3 i.e. photocopy of PAN card, Mark A photocopy of his Aadhar card.
Petitioner also got examined Sh.Rajender Joshi as Petitioner's Witness03(in short, PW3) who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW3/A. PW3 relied upon Ex.PW3/1 i.e. photocopy of his Aadhar Card.
6. RESPONDENT EVIDENCE:
It is relevant to pen down that the respondents have not led any evidence.
MACP No 1248/2016 Rachna & Ors. Vs. Jai Kumar & Ors. 6
7. I have heard the arguments and perused the material available on record.
8. The issuewise findings are as under :
ISSUE No. 1Whether Jaideep sustained fatal injuries in a motor vehicle accident dtd. 03.02.2016 due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle (Bus) No. DL 1PC 9157 being driven by Jai Kumar, owned by DTC and insured by Unite India Insurance Co. Ltd?... OPP At the very outset, it must be observed that initially, the present petition/application had been filed U/s 166/140 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 but later on, vide order dated 11.04.2023, present petition had been ordered to be converted from Section 166 MV Act to 163A M.V. Act on an application for converting the petition from U/s 166 MV Act to U/s 163A MV Act. Therefore, the petitioners are not required to plead or prove the ingredients of rashness or negligence in order to seek compensation in respect of the unfortunate death of deceased.
Now, since the present petition has been converted U/s 163A MV Act, this Tribunal shall restrict itself to adjudicating as to whether the deceased suffered fatal injuries in an accident arising out of the use of the offending vehicle.
The onus to prove this issue was conferred upon the petitioners.
The petitioner No. 1Rachna has examined herself as PW1 MACP No 1248/2016 Rachna & Ors. Vs. Jai Kumar & Ors. 7 who tender her evidene by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A and also relied upon MarkX1 i.e. photocopy of driving license of deceased, MarkX2 i.e. copy of ChargeSheet, Mark X3 i.e. photocopy of site plan, Mark X4 i.e. photocopy of notice U/s 133 MV Act, MarkX5 i.e. photocopy of Post Mortem Report, Mark X6 i.e. photocopy of MLC of the deceased, Mark X7 and 8 i.e. photocopy of Mechanical Inspection Report of both the vehicles.
Further, PW02Sikander Yadav testified that he was the owner of the vehicle bearing No. UP16BT6084 which was being driven by the deceased at the time of accident and deceased was employed by him on a monthly of Rs. 16,000/ per month. He relied upon the PW2/2 i.e. photocopy of RC of the vehicle No. UP 16BT 6084 The petitioners got examined Sh. Rajender Joshi as PW03 who claimed to be eyewitness. He deposed that he was occupant of the front driver side seat of Cab No. UP16BT6084 which was being driven by Sh. Jaideep. At about 8.30 AM, when their cab reached at red light of Sector1, Dwarka crossing, the driver was trailing behind a D.T.C. bus bearing No. DL1IPC9157, suddenly, the green light was over and the said bus and their cab was in process of crossing the Xing. The bus driver suddenly applied brakes an stopped his vehicle without any signal and in the meantime, their cab which was being driven by deceased Jaideep also applied the brakes but the cab slightly struck from behind to the DTC bus. Due to this simple struck, the driver of their cab got simple injuries in his chest who was removed to MACP No 1248/2016 Rachna & Ors. Vs. Jai Kumar & Ors. 8 DDU hospital for treatment and on the following day, he came to know that driver of their cab had expired during treatment.
It is very relevant to pen down here that as per Charge Sheet, during investigation, statement of Rajender Joshi was recorded. As per his statement, being the employee of Sky Link Ticket Company car NO. UP16 BT6084, they used to commute from their house to office and from the office to their house. On 03.02.2016, after discharging his duties at about 7.30 AM, he, Miss I.C. and Jaideep were going to their respective home. The abovesaid car being driven by Mr. Jaideep, he was sitting on the front seat of the car and Miss I.C was sitting on the rear seat of the car, when their car reached towards red light of Palam Flyover, Sector1, Dwarka, there a bus bearing NO. DL 1PC 9157 was ahead of their car. All the vehicles were in their lane but around 8.50 AM, soon as traffic light became red, all the vehicles present, suddenly applied brakes of their vehicles. The driver of their vehicles also applied brake but suddenly their car struck on the left side corner of DTC bus. Resultantly, the door of driver side of their car got damaged. It was accident by chance. Nobody was at fault. The driver of their car sustained simple injuries with the steering. He was taken to hospital by CAT ambulance. Later on, they came to know that the driver of their car namely Jaideep had passed away.
In light of above, here it is said that as per testimony of PW03Rajender Joshi, accident had occurred due to negligence of offending vehicle while per earlier statement of MACP No 1248/2016 Rachna & Ors. Vs. Jai Kumar & Ors. 9 Rajender Joshi, the accident had occurred by chance and no one was at fault.
Further, as per chargesheet,keeping in view of investigation conduct, inquiry, statements and fact and circumstnaces, it was concluded that accident was by chance, hence, Cancellation Chargesheet was filed It has already been stated that the present matter has already been converted from U/s 166 MV Act to U/s 163A MV Act so, point of negligence, need not to be decided.
It is also pertinent to mention that the respondent no.1/driver of aforesaid offending vehicle was the other material witness to throw light by testifying as to how and under what circumstances, the accident had taken place. However, he has preferred not to enter into the witness box during the course of inquiry/trial. Thus, an adverse inference is liable to be drawn against him to the effect that the accident in question had occurred due to involvement of the offending vehicle bearing Registration No. DL1PC9157.
Furthermore, as per the copy of PostMortem Report of the deceased, cause of death is due to Cardiac Arrest due to Shock subsequent to blunt forceful impact upon chest subsequen to RTA and manner of death is accidental.
In the case in hand, the accident took place due to the involvement of offending vehicle. This being a petition U/s. 163A MV Act, no rashness/negligence is required to be proved on the part MACP No 1248/2016 Rachna & Ors. Vs. Jai Kumar & Ors. 10 of offending vehicle and it is sufficient for grant of compensation U/s 163A MV Act that there is an accident involving a motor vehicle and as a result of such accident death or permanent disability results to the victim.
In view of abovedecision and considering facts and circumstances of the case, it stands proved that deceased Jaideep sustained fatal injures and died in motor accident dated 03.02.2016 due to involvement of the offending vehicle No. DL 1PC 9157 which was being driven by respondent no. 1Jai Kumar, owned by respondent no. 2 DTC and and insured with R3/ United India Insurance Company Ltd. at the time of accident.
In light of above, issue no. 1 is decided in favour of the petitioners and against respondents by holding that victimJaideep died in a vehicular accident due to involvement of the offending vehicle bearing No. DL1PC 9157 driven by respondent no. 1.
9. ISSUE No. 2:
Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation, if so, what amount and from whom?...OPP The onus to prove this issue was conferred upon the petitioners.
In order to discharge their onus, the petitioner No.1 Rachna examined herself as PW01. As per her testimony, on MACP No 1248/2016 Rachna & Ors. Vs. Jai Kumar & Ors. 11 03.02.2016, her husband namely Jaideep met with an accident and received fatal injuries and resultantly died In the present case, from the material and evidence on record, it is clear that Jaideep received fatal injuries & died in motor vehicle accident dated 03.02.2016 due to involvement of offending vehicle which was being driven by R1Jai Kumar.
It is relevant to pen down here that PW01 deposed that her husband was driving the cab of Skyline Travel Company, Sector132, Noida (U.P.) and was getting a monthly salary of Rs. 16,000/.
It is relevant to pen down here that no document has been proved on record to show that the deceased Jaideep was working as helper with M/s Sky Line Travel Company and getting monthly salary of Rs. 16000/. Therefore, in the absence of any documentary proof, the case will be decided on the basis of applicable minimum wages.
Now question which requires consideration here is that whether a claim petition U/s 163A MV Act, wherein the claimant has claimed annual income of deceased more than Rs.40,000/ per annum is maintainable or not.
This issue has been dealt by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in para no. 15 of the case titled as Rumkani Devi Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. and Another 2009 ACJ 2202 which is reproduced as under:
15. As regards grant of compensation in all such cases under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, the same is payable as indicated in the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act to the legal heirs of the victim or to the victim of MACP No 1248/2016 Rachna & Ors. Vs. Jai Kumar & Ors. 12 the accident itself, as the case may be. The Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act places restriction at Rs. 40,000/ per annum while no such restriction is there under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Can such a restriction placed in the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act prohibit filing of the claim petition itself where the income is pleaded at more than Rs. 40,000/ per annum. In my considered view, the answer has to be in the negative, it is not merely by pleading a particular income that the right to file petition under Section 163-A can be denied. In a particular case which is otherwise covered within the ambit and scope of Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, the claim petition cannot be dismissed merely on the ground that the income pleaded therein in the petition is more than Rs. 40,000/ per annum. It is ultimately the proof of income which would determine the grant of relief under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, but restriction of Rs. 40,000/ per annum as indicated in the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act cannot also be taken as a cap as the government has failed to revise the structural formula of the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act as mandated by Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act was to be revised from time to time keeping in view the cost of living by an appropriate notification in the official gazette by the Central Government but since the time of its insertion w.e.f. 14.11.1994 no revision has taken place even after lapse of about more than 13 years. Since the criteria of revision was based on the cost of living, therefore, this Court has taken a consistent view by taking the help of Minimum Wages Act to revise the minimum wages after taking into account rise in the price index and inflation rates. There has been an average increase of up to 4% to 6% in the price index each year and within a gap of about 10 years there has been an increase of wages in the Minimum Wages Act, which comes out as more than double of the wages comparing the wages in the year 1994. For instance wages of an unskilled worker in the year 1994, when the IInd Schedule came into effect, was Rs. 1420/ which came to be Rs. 3312/ in the year 2006, the year in which the award was made. This would show an increase of 233.2% and based on the same analogy, it can be said that such an increase can be taken into consideration without considering the said cap of Rs. 40,000/ per annum in the structural formula of the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act.
MACP No 1248/2016 Rachna & Ors. Vs. Jai Kumar & Ors. 13 Further this issue has also considered by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in another case titled as Smt. Suman Malhotra & Anr. Vs. Gulfam and Ors., MAC. APP. 44/2011 where it was held as under:
6. The issue whether the claim petition filed under Section 163A is maintainable if the annual income of the deceased is more than Rs.40,000/ per annum. This court has categorically opined that taking the interpretation of Section 163A of Motor Vehicles Act, the clear intention of the legislation was to come to rescue of all those who, in the absence of any evidence, are not in a position to file a claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act. Where death of the victim or permanent disablement of victim was required to be proved by establishing the factum of negligence in favour of the offending vehicle resulting into causing the accident under Section 163A, the requirement of proving the negligence has been dispensed with. Even otherwise, the issue before the Supreme Court in Deepal Girishbhai (Supra) was whether two petitions filed by the claimants simultaneously under Sections 166 and 163A are maintainable. In para 51 of the aforesaid judgment, it is recorded that it does not contain any provision providing for set off against a higher compensation unlike Section 140. In terms of the said provision, a distinct and specified class of citizens, namely, persons whose income per annum is Rs.40,000/ or less is covered thereunder whereas Sections 140 and 166 cater to all sections of society.
7. In Rukmani Devi (supra), the aforesaid case was considered and finally answered that the Tribunal has to consider the claim petition whether the income of the deceased was more than Rs.40,000/ per annum; but it is nowhere said that if in any petition the income of the deceased was claimed more than Rs.40,000/, than a victim of the accident cannot file the claim petition under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act.
In the light of the above discussion, This Tribunal proceeds to decide the present petition despite the fact that income of the deceased might be more than Rs. 40,000/ per month.
MACP No 1248/2016 Rachna & Ors. Vs. Jai Kumar & Ors. 14 As such, the petitioners, being the LRs of deceasedJaideep have become entitled to claim compensation for death of the said deceased.
10. Now, the question arises as to how much amount is to be awarded in favour of the claimant in the present petition filed U/s 163A of M.V Act. It may be noted here that recently, Govt of India has issued Notification No. S.O. 2022 (E) dated 22.05.2018, whereby Second Schedule appended to Motor Vehicles Act, has been substituted with new Second Schedule. The amended Second Schedule clearly stipulates that in case of fatal accident, the compensation payable shall be fixed amount of Rs. 5,00,000/ ( Rs. Five Lacs Only). Considering the fact that Motor Vehicular Act is beneficial legislation enacted by Parliament with object to alleviate the sufferings of the victims of road accidents and to restore them to their original position as far as possible, the amended Second Schedule shall be applicable to the pending proceedings also. Accordingly, the compensation amount of Rs. 5,00,000/(Rs.Five Lacs) is awarded in favour of claimants/petitioners in the present proceedings.
11. NUMBER OF DEPENDENTS:
It is not disputed during arguments that petitioner No. 1Rachna is wife and petitioner No. 2Baby Joyal is daughter of the deceased.
Thus, petitioners, being the LRs of deceased- Jaideep have become entitled to claim compensation for the death of said deceased in the above-said accident.
MACP No 1248/2016 Rachna & Ors. Vs. Jai Kumar & Ors. 15
12. LOSS OF ESTATE In terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case titled as National Insurance Company Ltd., vs. Pranay Sethi1, a sum of ₹16,500/ is awarded towards the head 'loss of estate'.
13. FUNERAL EXPENSES Further, in terms of the law /guidelines laid down in the case National Insurance Company Ltd., vs. Pranay Sethi2, a sum of ₹ 16,500/ is awarded to the petitioners towards ' funeral expenses'.
14. LOSS OF CONSORTIUM In given fact and circumstances of the case and in view of law /guidelines laid down in the case Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd vs Nanu Ram and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Satinder Kaur3, a sum of ₹88,000/ (₹ 44,000/ x 2) is awarded as compensation under the head 'Loss of Consortium'.
15. The break up of compensation that has been awarded in favour of the petitioners have been tabulated as below : 1
2.
3
MACP No 1248/2016 Rachna & Ors. Vs. Jai Kumar & Ors. 16
Sl. HEAD AMOUNT
No.
1 Compensation towards death of ₹ 5,00,000/
deceasedKameshwar Yadav
2 Funeral Expenses Rs. 16,500/
3. Loss of Estate Rs. 16,500/
4. Loss of consortium ₹88,000/
TOTAL Rs. 6,21,000/
Accordingly, the total compensation comes to ₹6,21,000/ (Rs. Six Lakhs and Twenty One Thousand only).
16. INTEREST:
In the instant case, there is nothing on record, which could justify the withholding of interest on the award amount. In these circumstances and having regard to the fact and circumstances of the present case, it will be just and proper to award interest @ 9% per annum on the award amount in this case. in view of the law laid down in Erudhaya Priya vs State Express Transport Corporation Ltd. Hence, the petitioners are awarded interest @ 9% per annum on the abovesaid compensation / award amount i.e ₹6,21,000/ (Rs. Six Lakhs and Twenty One Thousand only) from the date of filing of petition i.e. 09.05.2016 till its realization.
17. LIABILITY:
MACP No 1248/2016 Rachna & Ors. Vs. Jai Kumar & Ors. 17 Now coming to the extent of liability.
It has already been held that the deceased had expired due to involvement of the offending vehicle which was being driven by respondent no.1. He is primarily liable to make payment.
However, the offending vehicle bearing no. DL1 PC9157 was being driven by respondent no. 1Jai Kumar, owned by DTC and and insured with R3/ United India Insurance Company Ltd. at the time of accident and as such, respondent no. 3 / United India Insurance Company Ltd. shall be liable to pay the awarded amount.
Hence, in view of the above, issue no. 2 is decided in favour of the petitioners and against respondents by holding that petitioners are entitled for compensation from respondent no. 3.
18. ISSUE NO.3 (RELIEF) The present Petition is allowed. Respondent no.3United India Insurance Company Ltd. is directed to pay ₹6,21,000/ (Rs. Six Lakhs and Twenty One Thousand only) alongwith interest @ 9% from the date of filing of the Petition i.e. 09.05.2016 till its realization within 30 days from today to the petitioners.
19. APPORTIONMENT:
MACP No 1248/2016 Rachna & Ors. Vs. Jai Kumar & Ors. 18 The abovesaid award amount i.e. ₹6,21,000/ shall be apportioned amongst the LRs of the deceased-Jaideep in the following manner with proportionate interest:
S. Name of the petitioner/relation with Amount No. deceased
1. Petitioner no. 1 Rachna (wife) ₹5,00,000/
2. Petitioner no. 2Joyal (Daughter ) ₹1,21,000/ Total ₹ 6,21,000/
20. In the instant case, the award amount shall be deposited/ transferred within 30 days by respondent no. 3/United India Insurance Company Ltd. in the Account No. 37665510911 of 'MACT (SouthWest), Dwarka Courts, New Delhi' at State Bank of India, District Court Complex, Sector10, Dwarka New Delhi, (IFSC Code SBIN0011566 and MICR Code 110002483) by RTGS/NEFT/IMPS under intimation, with proof of notice to the claimant/petitioners and their counsel, to the Nazir of this court .
Further, in given fact and circumstances of the present case, the award amount shall be distributed as follows: S Name Status Age Amount of Release Amount of FDR . at Award Amount N prese o nt MACP No 1248/2016 Rachna & Ors. Vs. Jai Kumar & Ors. 19 (App rox.) 1 Rachna Wife 28 ₹5,00,000/ ₹ 50,000/ ₹ 4,50,000/ be kept . years in 40 FDRs of ₹11,250/ each for the period from 1 month to 40 months in the name of petitioner with cumulative interest.
2 Joyal Daught 08 ₹1,21,000/ Nil Entire amount be
. er years kept in FDR till the
petitioner attains the
age of 18 years.
The abovesaid award amount shall be disbursed through Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit Scheme (MACAD Scheme) formulated vide Orders dated 01.5.2018 and 07.12.2018 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in FAO No. 842/2013 (Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors.).
21. In the instant case, it has been stated that a Saving Bank Accounts of the petitioners have already been opened at Nationalized bank.
Accordingly, the Manager, SBI, District Courts Complex, Dwarka, Sector10, New Delhi is directed to transfer the abovesaid cash amounts to the respective saving bank accounts of the abovesaid petitioners after due verification and as per rules and to keep the remaining amount in the form of abovementioned FDRs in terms of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Annuity Deposit (MACAD) Scheme formulated vide MACP No 1248/2016 Rachna & Ors. Vs. Jai Kumar & Ors. 20 orders dated 01.5.2018 and 07.12.2018 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in FAO No. 842/2013 (Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors.).
Managers of the bank where the said petitioners are having the respective saving bank accounts (hereinafter referred to as the petitioners' bank) are directed to release the abovesaid cash amount to the abovesaid petitioners, as per rules, as prayed.
At the time of maturity, the fixed deposit amount shall be credited in the aforesaid savings bank accounts of petitioners.
All the original FDRs shall be retained by the concerned bank, however, the statement containing FDR number, amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be provided to petitioners.
Manager of the concerned bank is directed not to permit premature encashment or loan qua the abovesaid FDRs to the petitioners without the prior permission of this court.
Further, the interest on the said FDRs shall be paid monthly by automatic credit /transfer of interest amount in the aforesaid SB Account of the said petitioners.
The abovesaid Petitioners' banks are also directed not to issue any cheque book and/or debit card to the petitioners and if the same have already been issued, the said bank is directed to cancel the same and make an MACP No 1248/2016 Rachna & Ors. Vs. Jai Kumar & Ors. 21 endorsement on the pass book that no cheque book or debit card shall be issued to petitioners.
The abovesaid Petitioners' bank shall permit account holder i.e. the said petitioners to withdraw money from the abovesaid saving bank account by means of a withdrawal form.
Ahlmad is directed to prepare a separate misc. file and put up the same for filing of the compliance report on 08.08.2023.
File be consigned to record room after due compliance. Digitally signed by REKHA REKHA Date:
2023.06.03 17:20:48 +0530 (Announced in the open Court (Rekha) on this 3rd day PO, MACT01 (SouthWest District) of June 2023 Dwarka Courts, New Delhi MACP No 1248/2016 Rachna & Ors. Vs. Jai Kumar & Ors. 22