Delhi District Court
Ritika Banik vs Virender Mann & Ors on 17 July, 2015
IN THE COURT OF MS. MADHU JAIN, PRESIDING OFFICER: MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL: SOUTH EAST DISTRICT/
SAKET COURTS/NEW DELHI
Suit No: 207/14
FIR no. 274/14
PSSector39, Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh
Ritika Banik Vs Virender Mann & Ors
Unique Identification number:02406C0185482014
FATAL CASE
1. Smt. Ritika Banik W/o Late Sh. Vishwajit Banik (wife of deceased)
2. Baby Riya Banik D/o Late Sh. Vishwajit Banik (daughter of deceased)
3. Master Rohan Banik S/o Late Sh. Vishwajit Banik (son of deceased)
4. Smt. Jharna Banik W/o Sh. Jiwan Banik (mother of deceased)
All are R/o House no. D2/394, J.J.Colony, Madanpur Khadar,
Near Jaitpur police station, Delhi 110076.
...........................Petitioners/claimants
VERSUS
1. Sh. Virender Mann S/o Sh. Dharmveer Singh Mann (driver)
R/o House no. 19, Chauhan Enclave, Najafgarh, New Delhi 43
2. Sh. Sumer Singh S/o Sh. Hari Singh (Owner)
R/o972, TPT Company Delhi Cantt, New Delhi 10
3. National Insurance Company Limited
(Through its Manager)
Division no. 10, Flat no. 101106, NI, BMC House
Connaught Place, New Delhi110001
...........Respondents
Date of Institution : 30.04.2014
Suit no. 207/14, Ritika Banik Vs Virender Mann & Ors (page no1 of 19)
Date of reserving judgment/order : 22.05.2015
Date of Pronouncement : 17.07.2015
JUDGMENT:
1. Present claim proceedings initiated on the basis of claim petition under section 166/140 of Motor Vehicle Act filed by the petitioners.
2. Petitioners/claimants in the present case are Smt. Ritika Banik wife of deceased Vishwajit Banik, Baby Riya Banik daughter of deceased, Master Rohan Banik son of deceased and Smt. Jharna Banik mother of deceased.
3. Brief facts of the case are that on 17.03.2014 at about 02.30pm, petitioner Vishwajit Banik alongwith his cousin brother Nitai Dass (Mosaji ka beta) were returning towards their house at Madanpur Khadar, Delhi on motorcycle bearing registration number DL3SCC1698 and when they reached near Mahamaya Fly over under the jurisdiction of police station Section39, Noida, Uttar Pradesh suddenly offending vehicle i.e Alto car bearing registration number PB11ZE (T) 6960 (temporary number), original registration number is DL9CAA5620 driven by respondent no. 1 in rash and negligent manner hit the motorcycle from behind, both fell down on the road and suffered grievous injuries, thereafter immediately removed to the nearby hospital, whereby concerned doctors of the said hospital medically examined, later on they declared them brought dead.
4. An FIR no. 274/14 under section 279/304A/427 IPC, PSSector39, Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh was registered on the statement of Sh. Raju Suit no. 207/14, Ritika Banik Vs Virender Mann & Ors (page no2 of 19) Banik (brother of deceased). During investigation police prepared the site plan, conducted mechanical inspection of the offending vehicle, collected the postmortem report of the deceased and arrested respondent no.1 driver. On completion of the investigation found respondent no.1 accused of rash and negligent driving, hence, chargesheeted him for the commission of offence under section 279/304A/427 of Indian Penal Code.
5. During proceedings, written statement was filed by the respondent no. 1 and respondent no. 2. They took the plea that they are not liable to pay any compensation since the offending vehicle alleged to have been involved in the accident was not responsible for the accident. They took the plea that present petition of the petitioner is false, frivolous, vexatious and malafide. The petitioner has not placed any documents in support of the allegations leveled in the present petition and in the absence of which the claim of the petitioner is legally bound to be rejected for lack of material particulars, details. They took the plea that no accident had taken place from the vehicle of the respondent no. 1 and 2 and a false case has been registered against the respondent. They took the plea that Alto car insured with the National Insurance Company Limited. They took the plea that amount of compensation claimed by the petitioner is exorbitant and highly excessive. Respondent no. 1 and 2 denied the alleged accident and injuries sustained by the deceased. They also denied that the offending driver drove the abovesaid offending vehicle in total disregard of the rules and regulations of the Motor Vehicle Act and also guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and respondent no. 1 was driving his vehicle in accordance with the traffic rules. They took the plea that no accident Suit no. 207/14, Ritika Banik Vs Virender Mann & Ors (page no3 of 19) took place as mentioned above due to sheer negligence of the offending vehicle. They denied that petitioner and their family members have suffered total financial loss.
6. During proceedings, written statement was also filed by respondent no.
3/insurance company. Insurance company took the plea that petition under reply is not maintainable as the petitioners did not file any supporting documents alongwith their petition to show the educational qualification of the deceased. Even they have failed to disclose the fact that how they are entitled for a sum of Rs. 20 lacs as a compensation. The documents which were filed by the petitioners about employment and earning of the deceased with the petition under reply are not supported by the salary slip and employment letter of the deceased etc. Insurance company further took the plea that if it is appeared to the satisfaction of the court that there is collusion between the insured/driver and the claimants or the insured and /or driver of the insured vehicle has failed to contest this case on merits then the insurance company shall take over their defence under section 170 of Motor Vehicle Act without the prejudice to the provision of section 149 (2) of the Motor Vehicle Act. It is specially denied that the accident took place due to the negligence of the driver of the insured vehicle and also the said time is contradictory. Insurance company took the plea that vehicle bearing number DL9CAA5620 (Alto 800) was insured with the insurance company vide insurance policy bearing number 35101031136134125385 for the period from 26.12.2013 to 25.12.2014 in the name of Mr. Sumer Singh. Insurance company took the plea that the amount claimed by the petitioners are vexatious, higher and excessive and not Suit no. 207/14, Ritika Banik Vs Virender Mann & Ors (page no4 of 19) supported by any documentary evidence. Even the petitioners have not given any bifurcation or details that how they are entitled for the claim amount. Insurance company took the plea that deceased himself was negligent at the time of accident. Insurance company denied about the alleged accident and injuries sustained by the deceased. Insurance company denied that deceased suffered fatal injuries due to rash and negligence driving of respondent no. 1.
7. During inquiry following issues were framed by my Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 02.09.2014 which are as under:
1. Whether the deceased received fatal injuries in the accident which took place on 17.03.2014 at about 02.30pm involving offending vehicle i.e Alto car bearing number DL9CAA5620 due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no. 1, owned by respondent no. 2 and insured by respondent no. 3 (insurance company)? OPP
2. To what amount of compensation the petitioner is entitled to claim and from whom ?
3. Relief.
8. During evidence petitioner Ritika Banik examined herself as PW1 and also examined PW2 Deepak Gupta.
9. PW1: PW1 Ritika Banik during her examination in chief relied upon certain documents i.e copy of ration card alongwith copies of election I cards of deponent and Smt. Jharna Banik mother of deceased are collectively Ex. Suit no. 207/14, Ritika Banik Vs Virender Mann & Ors (page no5 of 19) PW1/1 (OSR running into page no. 1 to 3), certified copy of criminal case records are Ex. PW1/2 (colly running into page no. 1 to 5), original death certificate of deceased Vishwajeet Banik issued from Uttar Pradesh is Ex. PW1/3, copy of salary certificate of deceased issued from Dee Gee's Creations is Ex. PW1/4 (objected to being photocopy), copy of school I card of Riya Banik and Rohan Banik children of deceased is Ex. PW1/5(OSR colly running into page no 1 to 2). In her cross examination she stated that she is illiterate but she knows how to make the signature only. The police official has informed her about the accident in which her husband sustained fatal injuries. Her deceased husband did not file any income tax return. He was 10th class passed. He studied from his native place. But she can not produce the educational certificate related with her deceased husband. She further stated that it is correct that she has only placed a copy of certificate issued by the employer but she has not produced any document regarding employment or salary certificate of her deceased husband. She has produced the driving licence of her deceased husband which is Ex. PW1/D1 (OSR) as per the same, the date of birth of her deceased husband is 17.08.1984. She further stated that it is correct that her husband did not take any diploma in packaging etc. She further stated that it is correct the she is house wife and has no other source of income.
10. PW2: Petitioner examined Sh. Deepak Gupta as PW2. He is owner of the company DEE GEE's Creations, 303 F, Floor Sant Nagar, East of Kailash, New Delhi19, aged about 50 years. During his examination in chief, he relied upon certain documents i.e copy of his PAN Card Ex. as PW2/1 Suit no. 207/14, Ritika Banik Vs Virender Mann & Ors (page no6 of 19) (OSR), copy of certificate of importerexporter code (IEC) is Mark 'A' and salary certificate is already Ex. as PW1/4 and copy of driving license is Ex. as PW2/3(OSR). In his cross examination he stated that he is the owner of the company and the deceased was employed as a packaging supervisor as well as field officer since 2005. Initially the salary was being paid in cash and thereafter, in 2013, he started giving the salary through cheque and cash also. He paid Rs. 12,000/ per month to the deceased. He maintained salary register as well as attendance register in his company but he has not brought it today. He can produce it in future. He has 14 employees in his company. He does not issue any appointment letter at the time of appointment of his employees. He has not brought any documents to show that the deceased was working in his company and getting Rs. 12,000/ per month. He is not a summoned witness. He was told to appear in the present matter by the counsel for the petitioner. He further stated that it is correct that he has not filed any document to show that he is the proprietor of DEE GEE's Creations.
11. No evidence is led by respondents.
12. After hearing arguments and considering the material on record, my issuewise finding are as follows:
Issue No.1 (Negligence):
13. PW1 Ritika Banik in her affidavit of evidence (Ex. PW1/A) stated that Suit no. 207/14, Ritika Banik Vs Virender Mann & Ors (page no7 of 19) deceased suffered fatal injuries due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no. 1. Police during investigation also found respondent no. 1 accused of rash and negligent driving, hence chargesheeted him for commission of offence under section 279/304A/427 of Indian Penal Code.
14. To determine the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle, I am also being guided by the judgment of Hon'ble High Court (MP) in case titled as "Basant Kaur & Ors Vs. Chattar Pal Singh and Ors" [2003 ACJ 369 MP (DB)], wherein it has been held that registration of a criminal case against the driver of the offending vehicle is enough to record the finding that the driver of offending vehicle is responsible for causing the accident. Further it has been held in catena of cases that the proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act are not akin to the proceedings as in civil suit and hence strict rules of evidence are not required to be followed in this regard. I am also being guided by the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in "National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pushpa Rana" (2009 ACJ 287), wherein it was held that in case the petitioner files the certified copy of the criminal record or the criminal record showing the completion of the investigation by the police or the issuance of charge sheet under Section 279/304 A IPC or the certified copy of the FIR or in addition the recovery memo or the mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle, these documents are sufficient proof to reach to the conclusion that the driver was negligent. It is also settled law that the term rashness and negligence has to be constructed lightly while making a decision on a petition for claim for the same as compared to the word rashness and Suit no. 207/14, Ritika Banik Vs Virender Mann & Ors (page no8 of 19) negligence as finds mention in the Indian Penal Code. This is because the chapter in the Motor Vehicle Act dealing with compensation is a benevolent legislation and not a penal one. Apex court in case titled N.K. V. Bros (P) Ltd. Vs. M. Karumai Ammal & ors (AIR 1980 SC 1354) observed that accident Tribunal must take special care to see that innocent victims do not suffer and drivers and owners do not escape liability merely because of some doubt here or some obscurity there. Save in plain cases, culpability must be inferred from the circumstances where it is fairly reasonable. The court should not succumb to niceties, technicalities and mystic maybes.
15. In view of the above discussion, petitioner has been able to prove that deceased suffered fatal injuries due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent no.1 Accordingly the issue no. 1 is decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
Issue no. 2 Compensation:
16. Apex Court in Sarla Verma Vs. DTC (AIR 2009 SC 3104) comprehensively dealt with the relevant principals relating to the assessment of compensation in death cases. Apex Court in this case observed that in fatal accident, the measure of damage is pecuniary loss suffered or likely to be suffered by each dependent as a result of death, and basically only three facts need to be established by the claimants for assessing compensation in case of death: (a) age of the deceased or claimant whichever is higher, (b) income of the deceased and (c) number of dependents.
Suit no. 207/14, Ritika Banik Vs Virender Mann & Ors (page no9 of 19)
17. Age of the deceased Vishwajit Singh: PW1 Ritika Banik in her cross examination has produced the driving licence of her deceased husband which is Ex. PW1/D1(OSR) and as per the same, the date of birth of the her deceased husband is 17.08.1984 therefore age of deceased was around 29 years on the date of accident i.e 17.03.2014. Thus, applicable multiplier according to Sarla Verma case is 17.
18. Income: Petitioner in her affidavit of evidence stated that deceased was working on the post of Packaging Supervisor & All Field Job in the department of M/s DE & GEE'S Creations 03 F.F.Sant Nagar , East of Kailash, New Delhi65 and withdrawing salary a sum of Rs. 12,000/ per month only. She further stated in his affidavit of evidence that deceased used to fulfill all the basic need of his family and maintained them as they were totally dependent upon him. In this regard, petitioner filed copy of salary certificate Ex. PW1/4 (objected to being photocopy). In the salary certificate it is mentioned that deceased Vishwajit Banik was working in the company Dee Gee's Creations as a Packing Supervisor and all Field Job since 2005 and presently withdrawing Rs. 12,000/ per month inclusive all other benefits till the date of his death. Petitioner has also examined PW2 Deepak Gupta who is employer of her late husband. He stated that he is the owner of the company DEE GEE's Creations and he also filed copy of the PAN card Ex. PW2/1 as well as copy of certificate of importer exporter code (IEC) i.e Mark A in the court. He duly proved the salary certificate issued to the deceased. He stated that deceased was employed as a Packaging Supervisor as well as Field Officer since 2005. He further stated Suit no. 207/14, Ritika Banik Vs Virender Mann & Ors (page no10 of 19) that initially he used to pay salary in cash and thereafter in 2013, he started giving the salary through cheque and used to pay Rs. 12,000/ per month to the deceased. He further stated the he maintained salary register as well as attendance register of his company but did not produce the same in the court. Merely because this witness is not a summoned witness, his testimony can not be discarded by the court. He has stated that he is the owner of the DEE GEE's Creation and he also filed copy of certificate of importer exporter code (IEC) and has duly proved the salary certificate of the deceased. There is no reason to disbelieve his testimony. Moreover nothing has come in his cross examination. Rather it is in cross examination only that the fact regarding employment of the deceased in his company has come on record. This witness is a truthful witness. There is no reason to disbelieve his testimony, hence the income of the deceased is assessed around Rs. 12,000/ per month.
19. Dependents: PW1 Ritika Banik in her affidavit of evidence stated that deceased left behind her, her mother in law namely Smt. Jharna Banik, two minor children namely Riya Banik (daughter of deceased) and Rohan Banik (son of deceased). From the material on records, all petitioners are found to be dependent upon the deceased at the time of death of deceased. Hence, total number of dependents are found four.
20. Deduction for personal and living expenses: Deceased was having four dependents at the time of accident, in view of Sarla Verma Case, ¼ of the income is to be deducted towards deduction on personal and living Suit no. 207/14, Ritika Banik Vs Virender Mann & Ors (page no11 of 19) expenses.
21. Future prospects: Deceased was aged around 29 years at the time of accident, thus, entitled for 50% increase towards future prospects. {relied upon Rajesh & Ors. Vs. Rajbir Singh 2013 (6) SCALE 563, Puskar Mehra Vs. Brij Mohan Kushwaha & Ors 2013 (14) SCALE 26, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Vs. Angrej Singh & Ors. MAC. Appeal 846/2011 dated 30/09/2013 (Delhi High Court)}.
22. Loss of dependency: (Rs. 12,000/ + Rs. 12,000/ X50%) X12X ¾ X17=Rs. 27,54,000/
23. Hon'ble apex court in case titled 'Rajesh & Ors. Vs. Rajbir Singh & ors.
2013(6) SCALE 563", directed Tribunals that irrespective of the claims made in the application, the Tribunals are required to award compensation which should be just equitable and reasonable. In this regard, the Hon'ble apex court revisited the amount of compensation under conventional heads of loss of consortium , loss of love and affection and funeral expenses. Apex court in para no. 20 & 21 held as under:
20 "The ratio of a decision of this Court, on a legal issue is a precedent. But an observation made by this Court, mainly to achieve uniformity and consistency on a socioeconomic issue, as contrasted from a legal principle, though a precedent, can be, and in fact ought to be periodically revisited, as observed in Santosh Devi (Supra). We may, therefore, revisit the practice of awarding Suit no. 207/14, Ritika Banik Vs Virender Mann & Ors (page no12 of 19) compensation under conventional heads: loss of consortium to the spouse, loss of love , care and guidance to children and funeral expense. It may be noted that the sum of Rs. 2,500/ to Rs. 10,000/ in those heads was fixed several decades ago and having regard to inflation factor, the same needs to be increased. In Sarla Verma's case (Supra), it was held that compensation for loss of consortium should be in the range of Rs. 5000/ to Rs. 10,000/. 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. That nonpecuniary head of damage has not been properly understood by our Courts. The loss of companionship, love, care and protection, etc., the spouse is entitled to get, has to be compensated appropriately. The concept of nonpecuniary damage for loss of consortium is one of the major heads of award of compensation in other parts of the world more particularly in the United States of America, Australia, etc. English Courts have also recognized the right of a spouse to get compensation even during the period of temporary disablement. By loss of consortium, the courts have made an attempt to compensate the loss of spouse's affection, comfort, solace, companionship, society, assistance, protection, care and sexual relations during the future years. Unlike the compensation awarded in other countries and other jurisdictions, since the legal heirs are otherwise adequately compensated for the pecuniary loss, it would not be proper to award a major amount under this head. Hence, we are of the view that it would only be just and reasonable that the courts award at least rupees one lakh for loss of consortium.
Suit no. 207/14, Ritika Banik Vs Virender Mann & Ors (page no13 of 19)
21. We may also take judicial notice of the fact that the Tribunals have been quite frugal with regard to award of compensation under the head of 'funeral Expenses'. The 'Price Index', it is a fact has gone up in that regard also. The head '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 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 expensive. Therefore, we are of the view that it will 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/.
24. Funeral Expenses: Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case and the mandate of the above judgment, a sum of Rs. 50,000/ is granted towards funeral expenses.
25. Loss of love and affection: In present case, deceased was survived with wife, mother and two minor children. Thus, total sum of Rs. 3,00,000/ is granted to petitioners towards loss of love and affection.
26. Loss of Consortium: Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case and the mandate of the above judgment, a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/ is granted towards loss of consortium.
Suit no. 207/14, Ritika Banik Vs Virender Mann & Ors (page no14 of 19)
27. Loss of Estate: The petitioners are also entitled for loss of estate in respect of death of the deceased. Accordingly, an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/ is passed in favour of the petitioners towards loss of estate.
28. The total compensation is assessed as under: S.No. Description Amount 1 Loss of Dependency Rs. 27,54,000/ 2 Loss of Love & Affection Rs. 3,00,000/ 3 Loss of consortium Rs. 2,00,000/ 4 Funeral expenses Rs. 50,000/ 5 Loss of Estate Rs. 1,00,000/ Total Rs. 34,04,000/ Hence, the petitioners are awarded a total amount of Rs. 34,04,000/ (Rupees Thirteen lacs four thousand only).
RELIEF:
29. I hereby award an amount of Rs. 34,04,000/ (Rupees Thirteen lacs four thousand only) as compensation with interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of filing the present petition, i.e., till the date of realization of the amount, in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents on account of their liability being joint and several.
30. The driver R1 is the principal tort feasor whereas R2 being the owner vicariously liable for the acts of R1, R3 being insurance company liable to indemnify the owner.
Suit no. 207/14, Ritika Banik Vs Virender Mann & Ors (page no15 of 19)
31. In view of the above discussion, respondent no. 3 is directed to discharge the liability of the award amount within a period of 30 days from today alongwith the interest @ 9% per annum, failing which interest @ 12% per annum shall be charged for the period of delay.
Release of awarded amount:
32. Share of petitioner no.1 (Smt. Ritika Banik, wife of deceased): Out of total sum of Rs. 34,04,000/ (Rupees Thirteen lacs four thousand only), a sum of Rs. 24,04,000/ alongwith proportionate interest thereon, is awarded to the petitioner no.1 being wife of the deceased. Out of this amount, Rs. 4,04,000/ alongwith proportionate interest be immediately released to the petitioner no.1 on realization. And for balance amount of Rs. 20 lacs alongwith proportionate interest thereon be kept in form of FDRs in the following phased manner :
1. Rs. 4 lacs for period of 1 year
2. Rs. 4 lacs for period of 2 years
3. Rs. 4 lacs for period of 3 years
4. Rs. 4 lacs for period of 4 years
5. Rs. 4 lacs for period of 5 years
33. In the share of petitioner no. 2 (Riya Banik, daughter of deceased) and petitioner no. 3 (Rohan Banik, son of deceased): A sum of Rs. 4 lacs (Rs.
4,00,000X2=Rs. 8,00,000/) each alongwith proportionate interest thereon, is awarded to the petitioner no.2 and petitioner no. 3 being children of deceased which is to be kept in form of FDRs till they attain the age of 21 years. Suit no. 207/14, Ritika Banik Vs Virender Mann & Ors (page no16 of 19)
34. Share of petitioner no. 4 (Smt. Jharna Banik mother of deceased) : A sum of Rs. 2 lacs alongwith proportionate interest thereon, is awarded and immediately released to the petitioner no.4 being mother of deceased.
35. 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 Vs. Nanisiri" bearing MAC 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.
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, respondent no. 3/ 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 30 days from today, failing which Suit no. 207/14, Ritika Banik Vs Virender Mann & Ors (page no17 of 19) respondent no.3 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 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 claimant/ petitioner 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 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 Savings Account to any other branch of State Bank of India, according to their Suit no. 207/14, Ritika Banik Vs Virender Mann & Ors (page no18 of 19) 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.
40. Directions for the respondent No. 3: The Respondent no. 3 is directed to file the compliance report of their having deposited the awarded amount with the 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 claimants/petitioners about it having deposited the cheques in favour of 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 the order be given dasti to all the parties.
43. Put up the matter for compliance on 24.08.2015.
Announced in the Open court on 17.07.2015 (Madhu Jain) POMACT02 (South East District) Saket Courts, New Delhi/17.07.2015 Suit no. 207/14, Ritika Banik Vs Virender Mann & Ors (page no19 of 19)