Delhi District Court
Delhi vs Lakhbir Singh S/O Sh. Sampuran Singh on 21 January, 2013
IN THE COURT OF MS. REKHA RANI : JUDGE : MACT :
DELHI
MACT No. : 719/07
UNIQUE ID NO. : 02404C0436252007
1 Smt. Rama Devi (widow of deceased)
2. Ms. Rajni ( minor daughter of deceased)
3. Master Neeraj ( minor son of deceased)
4. Master Akash (minor son of deceased)
5. Ms. Ruby (minor daughter of deceased)
6. Sh. Lakhan Singh (father of deceased)
All R/o Jhuggi No. 61/62, Mauji Wala Bagh Lal Bagh,
Azadpur, Delhi33 Permanent: H. No. 46, Ahamdabad, PS Bagh
Wala, Teh. & Distt. Etah, UP
.........Petitioners
Versus
1 Lakhbir Singh S/o Sh. Sampuran Singh
R/o Vill & PO Rohan Ward no.1, Teh Khanna, Distt.
Ludhiana, Punjab.
............ Driver
2 Parminder Singh S/o Sh. Baldev Singh
R/o VPO Rahon, Ward no.1, Teh. Khanna Distt.
Ludhinana, Punjab
........... Owner
MACT 719/07 Rama Devi Vs. Lakhbir Singh 1/26
3 National Insurance Company Ltd.
RO1, 124 Jeewan Bharti Building, Tower No.1
4th Floor, Cannaugh Circus, New Delhi1
......Ins. Co.
.......Respondents
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 17.08.2007 DATE OF RESERVING ORDER : 10.12.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21.01.2013 A W A R D
1. Sh. Geetam Singh died in a road accident. His father petitioner no.6, his widow petitioner no.1, his minor children petitioners no. 2 to 5 and his father, petitioner No. 6 have filed the present petition under section 140 & 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (in short the Act) claiming an amount of Rs.30 lacs as compensation with interest.
2. Facts pleaded in the petition are as follows:
On 28.07.07 at about 2:15 pm Geetam Singh (since deceased) alongwith Surjesh were crossing the road on foot in between shed no. 6 and shed no. 9 at New Subzimandi Azadpur, Delhi. Suddenly a truck bearing no. HR37A1889 (in short the offending vehicle) which was being driven by Lakhbir Singh (in MACT 719/07 Rama Devi Vs. Lakhbir Singh 2/26 short R1) at fast speed rashly and negligently came from shed no. 10 New Subzimandi, Azadpur, Delhi side and hit the deceased with great force and ran over him. Deceased died on the spot. He was taken to BJRM hospital where his postmortem was conducted.
He was 35 years old and was working as Rickshaw Rehri puller and was earning Rs. 6000/ per month. He was sole bread earner for the petitioners.
3. R1 and Parminder Singh owner of the offending vehicle (in short R2) filed common written statement. It is alleged that deceased met with accident due to his own negligence and not due to any fault of R1. It is further stated that amount of compensation claimed is highly excessive and exorbitant.
4. National Insurance Company Limited (in short R3) filed written statement. It is stated that R2 is not entitled to any compensation on the ground that R1 was not having any valid and effective DL at the time of accident. It is admitted that vehicle No. HR37A1889 was insured vide policy No. 150100/ 31 / 07 /6300002990 valid from 16.06.07 to 15.06.08 in the name of R2. However, it is denied that petitioners are entitled to claimed compensation which is stated to be highly exorbitant. MACT 719/07 Rama Devi Vs. Lakhbir Singh 3/26
5. Following issues were framed by my Ld. Predecessor vide his order dated 08.09.2008 :
1 Whether on 28.07.07 at 2:15 pm at New Subzi Mandi, Azadpur, truck no. HR37A1889 which was being driven rashly and negligently hit Geetam Singh and caused his death? OPP
2. Whether deceased himself was guilty of negligence?
OPR
3. Whether petitioners are entitled to compensation as prayed for if so from which of the respondent?OPP 4 Relief.
Rama Devi widow of the deceased was examined as PW1. Surjesh (in short complainant) was examined as PW2 and thereafter petitioners closed their evidence. R3 examined Harinder Kumar its A.O as R3W1 and thereafter R3 closed its evidence. I have perused the case file and I have also heard the counsel for petitioners and counsel for R3.
6. ISSUE NO.1 & 2QUA NEGLIGENCE It has to be borne in mind that Motor Vehicles Act does not stipulate holding a trial for petition preferred under section 166 of the Act. Under Section 168 of the Act, a Claims Tribunal holds MACT 719/07 Rama Devi Vs. Lakhbir Singh 4/26 an inquiry to determine compensation which must appear to it to be just. Strict rules of evidence are not applicable in an inquiry conducted by the Claims Tribunal. In State of Mysore Vs. S.S. Makapur, 1993 (2) SCR 943. Hon'ble Apex Court held " that tribunal exercising quasijudicial functions are not courts and that therefore they are not bound to follow the procedure prescribed for trial of actions in courts nor are they bound by strict rules of evidence. They can unlike courts, obtain all information for the points under the enquiry from all sources and through all channels, without being fettered by rules and procedure, which govern proceedings in court. The only obligation which the law casts on them is that they should not act on any information which they may receive unless they put it to the party against whom it is to be used and give him a fair opportunity to explain it. What is a fair opportunity depend on the facts and circumstances of each case but where such an opportunity has been given, the proceedings are not open to attack on the ground that the enquiry was not conducted in accordance with the procedure followed in courts"
7. In Bimla Devi and ors. Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and Ors (2009) 13 SC 530, Supreme Court held that MACT 719/07 Rama Devi Vs. Lakhbir Singh 5/26 " In a situation of this nature, the Tribunal has rightly taken a holistic view of the matter. It was necessary to be borne in mind that strict proof of an accident caused by a particular bus in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the claimants. The claimants were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied."
8. In National Insurance Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Pushpa Rana & Ors. Decided on 20th December, 2007. Hon'ble Delhi High Court observed that "The last contention of the appellant insurance company is that the respondents claimants should have proved negligence on the part of the driver and in this regard the counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Meena Variyal. On perusal of the award of the Tribunal, it becomes clear that the wife of the deceased had produced (1) certified copy of the criminal record of criminal case in FIR No. 955/2001, pertaining to involvement of the offending vehicle, (ii) criminal record showing completion of investigation of police and issue of charge sheet under Section MACT 719/07 Rama Devi Vs. Lakhbir Singh 6/26 279/304A, IPC against the driver, (iii) certified copy of FIR, wherein criminal case against the driver was lodged; and (iv) recovery memo and mechanical inspection report of offending vehicle and vehicle of the deceased. These documents are sufficient proofs to reach the conclusion that the driver was negligent. Proceedings under Motor Vehicles Act are not akin to proceedings in a civil suit and hence strict rules of evidence are not required to be followed in this regard. Hence, this contention of the counsel for the appellant also falls face down."
9. Now I proceed to analyze the evidence adduced in the light of the aforesaid judgements.
10. Complainant deposed that on 28.07.07 at about 2:15 pm he alongwith deceased were crossing the road on foot in between shed no. 6 and shed no. 9 at New Subzi Mandi, Azadpur, Delhi. Suddenly the offending vehicle which was being driven by R1 at a very fast speed rashly and negligently came from shed no. 10, Azadpur, Delhi side and hit the deceased with great force. It is further deposed that deceased fell down on the road and wheels of the offending vehicle ran over his body.
11. Witness was crossexamined by counsel for R3. There MACT 719/07 Rama Devi Vs. Lakhbir Singh 7/26 is no crossexamination at all regarding the manner in which accident was deposed to have taken place. There is no cross examination that complainant and the deceased were crossing the road on foot between shed no. 6 & 9. There is no crossexamination that suddenly offending vehicle which was being driven by R1 rashly and negligently hit the deceased. There is no cross examination that deceased fell down on the road and wheels of the offending vehicle ran over his body. In his crossexamination it was suggested to the witness that he was not present at the spot of the accident and that he deposed falsely.
12. The witness categorically stated that police interrogated him at the spot. FIR was registered on the basis of his statement. Certified copies of criminal case show that R1 was prosecuted under section 279, 304 A IPC. Offending vehicle was seized by the police from the site of accident. R1 was arrested at the site of accident. R1 himself has not stepped into witness box to prove his allegation that accident took place due to negligence of deceased himself. He has not explained as to why he was prosecuted for causing the said accident.
13. In view of the testimony of the complainant and MACT 719/07 Rama Devi Vs. Lakhbir Singh 8/26 certified copies of record of criminal case, preponderance of probability is that R1 caused the said accident resulting into the death of deceased.
Both the issues are accordingly decided in favour of petitioners and against the respondents.
14. ISSUE NO. 3 QUA QUANTUM OF COMPENSATION In claim petition it was stated that deceased was earning Rs. 6000/ per month by pulling rickshaw rehri. In her crossexamination widow of deceased stated that she did not have any document to prove occupation or income of the deceased.
15. In ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Hari Singh & Ors. MAC APP No. 122/2011 ( in short ICICI Lombard) it was urged by LRs of the deceased that she used to sell milk and milk products at her house and was earning Rs.15,000/ per month. It was contended by Ld. Counsel for LRs of the deceased that Claims Tribunal ought to have accepted the deceased's income at Rs.15,000/ per month. Since no documentary evidence with regard to deceased's profession was produced, Claims Tribunal was held right in awarding loss of dependency on minimum wages.
MACT 719/07 Rama Devi Vs. Lakhbir Singh 9/26
16. In New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Maya Devi & Ors. MAC.APP.627/2011 there was no documentary evidence with regard to the employment of the deceased as a cook at M/s Aman Deep Dhaba or his salary at Rs.8,000/ per month. Dhaba was not registered with the Sales Tax/Vat Department. No register for payment of wages was maintained. No receipt regarding payment of any salary to the deceased was produced. In absence of any evidence regarding employment of the deceased with the said Dhaba or his salary at Rs.8,000/ per month, Hon'ble High Court vide its order dated 27.08.2012 observed "In the absence of any evidence with regard to the deceased's income, the only option left is to award loss of dependency on minimum wages of an unskilled worker which, at the time of accident were Rs.3683/ per month."
17. In the present case in absence of documentary evidence with regard to income and occupation of the deceased, loss of dependency has to be computed on minimum wages of unskilled category which was Rs. 3470/ on the date of accident.
18. In Santosh Devi V. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors., 2012 (4) SCALE 559 Hon'ble Apex Court observed that MACT 719/07 Rama Devi Vs. Lakhbir Singh 10/26 even in the absence of any evidence as to future prospects an increase of 30% in the income has to be provided where the victim had fixed income or was a self employed person. Relevant part of the order is extracted hereunder :
"14........In our view, it will be naive to say that the wages or total emoluments/income of a person who is selfemployed or who is employed on a fixed salary without provision for annual increment, etc., would remain the same throughout his life. The rise in the cost of living affects everyone across the board. It does not make any distinction between rich and poor. As a matter of fact, the effect of the rise in prices which directly impacts the cost of living is minimal on the rich and maximum on those who are selfemployed or who get fixed income/emoluments. They are the worst affected people. Therefore, they put extra efforts to generate additional income necessary for sustaining their families. The salaries of those employed under the Central and State Governments and their agencies/instrumentalities have been revised from time to time to provide a cushion against the rising prices and provisions have been made for providing security to the families of the deceased employees. The salaries of those employed in private sectors have MACT 719/07 Rama Devi Vs. Lakhbir Singh 11/26 also increased manifold. Till about two decades ago, nobody could have imagined that salary of Class IV employee of the Government would be in five figures and total emoluments of those in higher echelons of service will cross the figure of rupees one lac. Although, the wages/income of those employed in unorganized sectors has not registered a corresponding increase and has not kept pace with the increase in salaries of the Government employees and those employed in private sectors but it cannot be denied that there has been incremental enhancement in the income of those who are selfemployed and even those engaged on daily basis, monthly basis or even seasonal basis. We can take judicial notice of the fact that with a view to meet the challenges posed by high cost of living, the persons falling in the latter category periodically increase the cost of their labour. In this context, it may be useful to give an example of a tailor who earns his livelihood by stitching cloths. If the cost of living increases and the prices of essentials go up, it is but natural for him to increase the cost of his labour. So will be the cases of ordinary skilled and unskilled labour, like, barber, blacksmith, cobbler, mason etc. Therefore, we do not think that while making the observations in the last three MACT 719/07 Rama Devi Vs. Lakhbir Singh 12/26 lines of paragraph 24 of Sarla Verma's judgment, the Court had intended to lay down an absolute rule that there will be no addition in the income of a person who is selfemployed or who is paid fixed wages. Rather, it would be reasonable to say that a person who is selfemployed or is engaged on fixed wages will also get 30 per cent increase in his total income over a period of time and if he/she becomes victim of accident then the same formula deserves to be applied for calculating the amount of compensation."
19. Thus, LRS of deceased would be entitled to an addition of 30% towards inflation.
20. PW1 proved the copy of identity card of deceased issued by Election Commission of India as Ex. PY vide which he was 36 years on 01.01.07. There is no crossexamination on this document. So he was 36 years 6 month at the time of accident on 28.07.07. So as per Sarla Verma and Others Vs. DTC 2009 ACJ 1298 multiplier of 15 is applicable.
21. Deceased was survived by 6 legal representatives. As per Sarla Verma (Supra) 1/4th has to be deducted towards personal and living expenses.
22. Calculation MACT 719/07 Rama Devi Vs. Lakhbir Singh 13/26 Minimum Wages Rs.3470/ Addition of 30% towards inflation Rs.3470/ + 1041/ = 4511/ 1/4th deduction towards personal and living expenses Rs. 45111127=3384/ The loss of dependency comes to Rs.6,09,120/ (Rs.
3384X12X15)
23. Regarding compensation payable on account of loss of love and affection para 9 of the judgment in ICICI Lombard (Supra) is reproduced below :
"Loss of love and affection can never be measured in terms of money. Thus, uniformity has to be adopted by the Courts while granting nonpecuniary damages. The Supreme Court in Sunil Sharma V. Bachitar Singh (2011) II SCC 425 and in Baby Radhika Gupta V. Oriental Insurance Company Limited (2009) 17 SCC 627 granted Rs.25,000/ (in total to all the claimants) only under the head of loss of love and affection. This, I would reduce the compensation under this head to Rs.25,000/ only."
Accordingly, compensation of Rs.25,000/ is granted under the head of loss of love and affection.
24. Compensation of Rs.10,000/ is granted under the head MACT 719/07 Rama Devi Vs. Lakhbir Singh 14/26 funeral expenses as no document is available with regard to the expenses incurred on last rites.
25. A sum of Rs.10,000/ is awarded under the head loss to estate. Rs. 10,000/ is also granted towards loss of consortium to widow of deceased.
The over all compensation thus comes to Rs.6,64,120/ and after deduction of interim award of Rs. 50,000/ it comes to Rs. 6,14,120/ .
26. Counsel for R3 submitted that R3 is not liable to pay any compensation in view of the fact that R1 and R2 were unable to show permit of the offending vehicle.
27. R3 examined Harinder Singh its AO as R3W1. He stated that on instruction of R3 its advocate issued notice under Order 12 Rule 8 CPC to R1 and R2 through post for producing permit/fitness certificate of the offending vehicle as well as driving licence of R1 which was valid and effective on the date of accident. Notices were proved as Ex R3W1/1, R3W1/3, R3W1/5, R3W1/7, R3W1/9 and Ex. R3W1/11 and postal receipts vide which they were sent to R1 and R2 were proved as Ex. R3W1/2, R3W1/4, R3W1/6, R3W1/8, R3W1/10 and R3W1/12. The notices were sent to R1 and MACT 719/07 Rama Devi Vs. Lakhbir Singh 15/26 R2 on their correct addresses as available on judicial file. After filing their written statement, none appeared on behalf of R1 and R2 and they were proceeded exparte on 28.08.10. They have chosen to abstain from the proceedings. They have not appeared before Tribunal to challenge that they were not served with notices under Order 12 Rule 8 CPC.
28. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. V. Sanjay Kumar & Ors., ILR 2007 (II) Delhi 733, it was held that although initial onus is on the insurer to prove that there was breach of conditions of policy, but once it is proved the onus would shift on the insured (the owner of the vehicle) who must then step into the witness box to prove his case.
"Thus, where the insurance company alleges that the term of the policy of not entrusting the vehicle to a person other than one possessing a valid driving licence has been violated, initial onus is on the insurance company to prove that the licence concerned was a fake licence or was not a valid driving licence. This onus is capable of being easily discharged by summoning the record of the Licencing Authority and in relation thereto proving whether at all the licence was issued by the authority concerned MACT 719/07 Rama Devi Vs. Lakhbir Singh 16/26 with reference to the licence produced by the driver. Once this is established, the onus shifts on to the assured i.e. the owner of the vehicle who must then step into the witness box and prove the circumstances under which he acted; circumstances being of proof that he acted bonafide and exercised due diligence and care. It would be enough for the owner to establish that he saw the driving licence of the driver when vehicle was entrusted to him and that the same appeared to be a genuine licence. It would be enough for the owner, to discharge the onus which has shifted on to his shoulders, to establish that he tested the driving skill of the driver and satisfied himself that the driver was fit to drive the vehicle. Law does not require the owner to personally go and verify the genuineness of the licence produced by the driver.
Where the assured chooses to run away from the battle i.e. fails to defend the allegation of having breached the terms of the insurance policy by opting not to defend the proceedings, a presumption could be drawn that he has done so because of the fact that he has no case to defend. It is trite that a party in possession of best evidence, if he withholds the same, an adverse inference can be drawn against him that had the evidence been produced, the MACT 719/07 Rama Devi Vs. Lakhbir Singh 17/26 same would have been against said person. As knowledge is personal to the person possessed of the knowledge, his absence at the trial would entitle the insurance company to a presumption against the owner.
That apart, what more can the insurance company do other than to serve a notice under Order 12 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure calling upon the owner as well as the driver to produce a valid driving licence. If during trial such a notice is served and proved to be served, non response by the owner and the driver would fortify the case of the insurance company."
29. In the present case R1 & R2 were proceeded exparte. R3 had served notice under order 12 Rule 8 CPC calling upon them to produce permit, driving license of R1 and fitness certificate of the offending vehicle. They have not responded to the notice nor produced permit to drive the offending vehicle at the relevant place on the date of accident. As such presumption is that R1, driver of the offending vehicle, and R2 owner of the offending vehicle did not possess a permit to drive the offending vehicle on the date and place of accident.
30. In The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Kumud Devi MACT 719/07 Rama Devi Vs. Lakhbir Singh 18/26 & Ors MAC APP 520/2010, the offending vehicle did not possess fitness certificate on the date of accident. Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that absence of fitness certificate does not empower insurance company to avoid its liability under section 149(2) of the Act.
31. Petitioners placed on record certified copy of seizure memo, dated 28.07.2007, vide which police had taken into possession driving licence of R1. It shows that driving licence of R1 had No. 122966/END, dated 12.09.06, valid upto 26.12.2008 for M.CYCLE/ LTV/HMV ONLY.
Certified copy of photo copy of driving licence of R1 is also on record. R3 did not bother to have these particulars verified from the concerned authority to prove its allegations that R1 did not have driving licence to drive the offending vehicle on the date of accident.
R3 at page 1 of his written statement has taken an objection that it will not be liable to pay any compensation, if it is proved that R1 was driving the offending vehicle without valid and effective driving licence. Copy of the driving licence of R1 is on record. It was the duty of R3 to have the same verified and prove that the same was not valid and effective on the date of accident. The MACT 719/07 Rama Devi Vs. Lakhbir Singh 19/26 written statement of R3 was therefore play it safe.
32. Attitude of insurers to "deny everything await the award syndrome" was deprecated by Karnataka High Court in Ramakrishana Reddy Vs. Manager, HMT Ltd., 2003 ACJ 105, as under :
"We may also at this stage refer to the pernicious habit of some branches of insurance companies in filling stereotyped written statements denying all and everything. They routinely deny the insurance, then alternatively plead that even if there was an insurance, there was a breach of terms of the policy, that driver did not have a valid driving licence, and lastly there was no negligence on the part of driver of the insured vehicle. They do not bother to verify whether the insurance policy covered the risk or not and whether driver had a licence or not".
"The claimants are not litigants by choice, but are constrained to approach the Tribunal, because of death of the bread winner or injury to self, and because the owner and insurer of the vehicle involved, fail to pay the compensation. The insurer should bear in mind that the claimants are also handicapped in obtaining particulars of the insurance policy held by owner or MACT 719/07 Rama Devi Vs. Lakhbir Singh 20/26 driving licence held by the driver of the vehicle, and they solely depend upon the police for these particulars. The insurer should, therefore, verify whether there was any insurance policy or not, whether the insured was covered by insurance policy in regard to the claim or not, and whether the driver had a licence or not before filing its statement of objections and narrow down the area of controversy. If the insurers were to file " play it safe' written statements, without verifying these aspects and mechanically denying all petition averments, the trial gets delayed and the claimants are put to misery and injustly kept away from the direly needed compensation. It is time that insurers get rid of "deny everything await the award syndrome" and become responsible and responsive opponents in motor accident claims. We make it clear that the above observations are intended only for those officers of insurance companies who refuse to recognise their statutory obligations to third parties, under the insurance policies issued to the insured".
33. Failure of R1 and R2 to respond to the notice under Order 12 Rule 8 CPC and to show permit to drive the offending MACT 719/07 Rama Devi Vs. Lakhbir Singh 21/26 vehicle at the time and place of accident entitles R3 to recover the awarded amount from R1 and R2.
34. In Sohan Lal Passi Vs. P. Sesh Reddy, (1996) 5 SCC 21 the issue of satisfying third party liability in case of breach of the terms of insurance policy came up for consideration and it was held that an insurer is entitled to defend the action on the grounds as mentioned Under Section 149(2)(a)(i)(ii) of the Act and that onus is on insurance to prove willful and conscious breach of the condition of the policy and further that even if breach on the part of the insured is proved, the insurer still has a statutory liability to pay compensation to the third party and recover the same from the insured.
35. In New India Assurance Co., Shimla Vs. Kamla and Ors, 2001 III AD (S.C) 433, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, again held that the insurer is liable to pay the compensation to third party and it can recover the same from the insured if there was any breach of policy condition.
36. In United India Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Lehru & Ors. 2003 III AD (S.C.) 605, the Apex Court reiterated that even when conscious and willful breach as provided U/s 149 (2)(a) (ii) of the MACT 719/07 Rama Devi Vs. Lakhbir Singh 22/26 Act is proved, the insurance co. would still be liable to pay compensation to the third party and recover the same from the insured.
37. In National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Swaran Singh & Ors, 2004 IAD (S.C.) 491, Hon'ble Supreme Court again emphasized that liability of the insurer to pay compensation to third party is statutory.
38. In the present case R3 insurance co. has proved that there is willful breach of the policy under section 149 (2) (a) of the Act as R1 and R2 failed to show permit of the offending vehicle. But R3 is under statutory obligation to pay compensation to the third party and can recover the same from R1 and R2.
39. R3 is, accordingly directed to deposit the awarded amount of Rs.6,14,120/with interest at the rate of 7.5 % per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till its realisation in Punjab National Bank, Madhuban Chowk, Sector14, Rohini, Delhi85 through its Branch Manager in the accounts to be opened by the petitioners, within 30 days from today and is entitled to recover the deposited amount from R1 and R2.
40. In view of the judgment in General Manager, Kerala MACT 719/07 Rama Devi Vs. Lakhbir Singh 23/26 State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Susamma Thomas & Others, 1994 (2) SC, 1631 for appropriate investments to safeguard the amount from being frittered away by the beneficiaries owing to their ignorance, illiteracy and being susceptible to exploitation, following arrangements are hereby ordered:
41. An amount of Rs.44,120/ be given to father of deceased petitioner no. 6 and same be released to him. Rs. 1 lakh each be given to petitioners no. 2 to 5 and be kept in FDRs in their names till they attain the age of majority. Balance amount of Rs. 1,70,000/ be given to widow of the deceased petitioner no.1.
42. Rs. 70,000/ be released to widow of deceased out of her share and remaining amount of Rs.1,00,000/ be kept in two FDRs of Rs. 50,000/ each (i.e. One FDR of Rs. 50,000/ for one year and one FDR of Rs. 50,000/ for two years) in her name.
43. The fixed deposit on its maturity may be renewed at the discretion of the petitioners or deposited in their saving bank accounts.
44. The interest on the aforesaid fixed deposits shall be paid monthly by automatic credit of interest in the Saving Account.
45. The LRs of deceased/petitioners shall not be having MACT 719/07 Rama Devi Vs. Lakhbir Singh 24/26 any facility of loan or advance on these FDRs. However, in case of emergent need, they may approach this court for premature withdrawal of amount.
46. No cheque book be issued to the petitioners without the permission of this court.
47. The Bank shall issue Fixed Deposit Pass Book instead of the FDRs to the LRs of deceased and the maturity amount of the FDRs be automatically credited to the Saving Bank Account of the beneficiaries at the end of the FDRs.
48. On the request of the petitioners, Bank shall transfer the Saving Account to any other branch according to their convenience.
49. The LRs of deceased/petitioners shall furnish all the relevant documents for opening of the Saving Bank Account to the Branch Manager, of the said bank. No joint account be opened in their names.
50. Copy of this order be given to parties for compliance. Copy of this order be also sent to Branch Manager, of the said bank.
51. The petition is disposed of on aforesaid terms. File be consigned to record room.
MACT 719/07 Rama Devi Vs. Lakhbir Singh 25/26 ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN JUDGE/MACT:ROHINI COURT ON 21.01.2013 DELHI MACT 719/07 Rama Devi Vs. Lakhbir Singh 26/26