Delhi District Court
Kailashi vs . Vijay Kumar on 29 September, 2012
Kailashi Vs. Vijay Kumar
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJIV JAIN : PRESIDING OFFICER : MACT II
SOUTH DISTRICT : SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI
Petition No. 806/10
Unique case ID : 0240C0961262008
1. Smt. Kailashi
W/o Late Roop Chand Berwa
2. Sh. Ram Khilari
S/o Late Roop Chand Berwa
3. Sh. Rohit
S/o Late Roop Chand Berwa
4. Sh. Mohit
S/o Late Roop Chand Berwa
All R/o Vill. Lal Shoath, Distt. Dosa,
Rajasthan
(Petitioners no.2 to 4 are minors and represented
through petitioner no.1 being their mother/natural guardian)
...... Petitioners
Versus
1. Vijay Kumar
S/o Sh. Sh. Uttam Yadav
R/o VPO Meturia, P.S. Bahari,
Distt. Darbhanga, Bihar.
Suit No. : 806/10 1/24
Kailashi Vs. Vijay Kumar
2
2. Raj Kumar
S/o Late Sh. Bhagwat Prasad
R/o 187F/2, Jeewan Nagar, New Delhi.
3. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
M66, MBlock Market,
Greater Kailash PartI,
New Delhi
...... Respondents
Date of Institution : 08.09.2008
Date of reserving of judgment/order : 14.09.2012
Date of pronouncement : 29.09.2012
J U D G M E N T :
1. The petitioners being Legal Heirs of the deceased Roop Chand Berwa filed a claim petition u/s 166 & 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act for claiming compensation for untimely death of Roop Chand Berwa aged 37 years, in an accident on 28.08.08 at about 1.47 AM in front of HDFC Bank, near Pushpanjali Petrol Pump, Nelson Mandela Marg, New Delhi.
2. Briefly, the facts are that on 28.08.08 at about 1.47 AM, Roop Chand Berwa was going on foot. When he reached in front of HDFC Bank, near Suit No. : 806/10 2/24 Kailashi Vs. Vijay Kumar 3 Pushpanjali Petrol Pump, Nelson Mandela Marg, all of a sudden a Water Tanker bearing No. HR 55 B 2614 being driven by respondent no.1 at a high speed rashly and negligently came and hit him with a great force. As a result of this forceful impact, he fell down and died on the spot. He was removed to Safdarjung Hospital where his postmortem was conducted. A case vide FIR no. 420/08 was registered at the Police Station Vasant Kunj. The deceased was a labourer. He was earning Rs. 6000/ p.m. He was survived by his wife and three sons who were emotionally and financially dependent on him. Respondent no.2 was the owner of the Tanker and it was insured with respondent no.3.
3. Notice of the petition was given to the respondents.
4. Respondent no.1 did not contest the case and he was proceeded Exparte vide order dated 20.10.08. Respondent no.2 and 3 contested the petition and filed their written statements. Respondent no.2 stated that on 28.08.08 the respondent no.1 was plying the Tanker bearing no. HR 55 B 2614. At Nelson Mandela road some carpeting work was going on. He stopped the vehicle on the left side of the road to answer the call of nature. He had instructed the helper to stay in the vehicle. When he came back, he found that the driver of the road roller reversed the road roller in a rash and Suit No. : 806/10 3/24 Kailashi Vs. Vijay Kumar 4 negligent manner and hit his truck on its front portion. He got agitated and enquired from the driver of the road roller as to why he dashed against his stationary truck. A quarrel took place. When the helper of the respondent no.1 came to his rescue, the deceased and 67 workers were called by the driver of the Road Roller. They all started beating the respondent no.1 and his helper with iron rods, shovels etc. Due to this, respondent no.1 died on the spot. The helper, who also received injuries, ran towards the police station shouting that they have killed the driver. After hearing this, the deceased and other workers got panicked and tried to abscond from the spot. In that process, the deceased, while crossing the road, came in contact with a speeding vehicle and received injuries. He alleged that the police officials of the police station Vasant Kunj twisted the story and they instead nabbing the real culprits, made the respondent no.1 victim of the entire episode.
5. Respondent no.3 stated that the accident, if any had taken place, because of rash and negligent act on the part of the deceased himself who was moving on the public road on foot without caring for the incoming and outgoing traffic on the road. It was stated that the driver of the offending Tanker was not holding a valid and effective license at the time of accident. It admitted that the offending vehicle was insured with it vide policy no. Suit No. : 806/10 4/24
Kailashi Vs. Vijay Kumar 5 312500/31/08/01/00001752 for the period from 03.08.08 to 02.08.09 in favour of respondent no.2.
6. Following issues were framed vide order dated 17.03.09 :
1. Whether Roop Chand Berwa died due to injuries received by him in an accident on 28.08.08 at about 1.50 AM at Nelson Mandela Marg, near Pushpanjali Petrol Pump, due to rash and negligent driving of Water Tanker HR55B2614 by R1, the vehicle owned by R2 and insured with R3 insurance company? OPP.
2. The amount of compensation petitioners are entitled to?
3. Relief.
5. The petitioners examined Smt. Kailashi, wife of the deceased as PW1. She tendered the documents i.e. copy of the criminal record, medical record, MLC, postmortem report, FIR, site plan, seizure memo of DL, seizure memo of the vehicle, seizure memo of road roller, driving license, RC, insurance, mechanical inspection report, mark A1 to A22 and the copy of ration card Ex.PW1/1. Respondent no.1 examined Dr. Sukhdeep Singh, Asstt.
Professor, Forensic Medicine, LHMC, New Dehi as R1W2. Respondent no.2 examined himself as RW2. Sh. M K Kapoor, Advocate for the insurance company examined himself as RW3.
Suit No. : 806/10 5/24
Kailashi Vs. Vijay Kumar 6
6. I have heard the arguments advanced by Ld. Counsel Sh. R D Tyagi for the petitioners, Sh. Hitender Nahata for respondent no. 2 and Sh. M K Kapoor for respondent no. 3.
7. It was submitted by Ld. counsel for the petitioners that the deceased was a labourer aged about 37 years. He was the sole earning member in his family comprising of his wife and three minor children. The case was registered on the same day of accident. The charge sheet and the documents placed on record clearly support the case of the petitioners that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Tanker by the respondent no.1.
8. Ld. counsel for respondent no.3 stated that the respondent no.3 was driving the Tanker using a fake license. Respondent no.2 was the Transporter and it was incumbent upon him to verify the license of the respondent no.1 before appointing him on the offending vehicle. Ld. counsel for respondent no.2 on the contrary submitted that photographs, mechanical inspection report show that the vehicle was standing on the road side and not on the road rather the Road Roller was standing on the road. The respondent no.2 had checked the license of the respondent no.1 and also taken his test to know whether he knew driving the Tanker or not. In support of his contention, Ld. counsel Suit No. : 806/10 6/24 Kailashi Vs. Vijay Kumar 7 relied upon the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nehru & Ors. 1 (2003) ACC 611 (SC) and National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Swarn Singh & Ors. (2004) ACJ 1.
9. I have considered the submissions and perused the record. My findings on the issues are as follows :
I S S U E N O. 1
10. It is well settled law that where a 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 has simply to quantify the compensation which is just rational and reasonable on the basis of enquiry. The proceedings under Motor Vehicles Act are not akin to the proceedings in a civil suit. Further, roving enquiry is not required to prove the rashness and negligence on the part of the driver as has been held in Kaushumma Begum and others Vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 2001 ACJ 421 SC.
11. PW1 has stated that on 28.08.08 at about 1.47 AM her husband was going Suit No. : 806/10 7/24 Kailashi Vs. Vijay Kumar 8 on foot. When he reached in front of HDFC bank, near Pushpanjali Petrol Pump, Nelson Mandela Marg, a water tanker bearing no. HR 55 B 2614 being driven by respondent no.1 in a rash and negligent manner came at a high speed and hit her husband. She stated that due to heavy impact her husband died on the spot. He was removed to Safdarjung hospital where his postmortem was conducted. She also filed the copy of the report U/s 173 Cr.P.C. of the case registered vide FIR 420/08 at the police station Vasant Kunj. Perusal of it reveals that when the police party reached the spot on receipt of information, they found a Tanker HR 55 B 2614 and the dead body of the deceased. Investigation revealed that the Tanker had also struck with the Road Roller. The I.O collected the MLC of the deceased and recorded the statement of the eyewitness Rudal who was cleaner on the Tanker. He had stated that on 22.08.08 night, they were going from Dera Village to Sweden Embassy. In front of HDFC Bank, G10, Vasant Kunj a Dumper came from the wrong side. The Tanker driver Vijay seeking the Dumper took it towards the left side where construction work on the road was in progress and hit three persons. The tyre of the Tanker ran over one of the labourer and thereafter, the Tanker struck with the Road Roller. He stated that the Tanker driver also died in the accident. He had stated that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Water Tanker by the deceased driver of the Tanker. Site plan placed with the record also corroborates the Suit No. : 806/10 8/24 Kailashi Vs. Vijay Kumar 9 statement of the Rudal. As per the postmortem report, the cause of death was hemmorage shock due to injury to pelvis and long bone of body produced by heavy blunt force object. The mechanical inspection report also shows fresh damages on the Tanker. In the instant case the impact was so high that the Tanker driver also died. The maximum damage to the Tanker was on the front side. All these facts and circumstances show that the Tanker was being driven at a fast speed and it after hitting the deceased hit against the Road Roller.
12. In this case the respondent no.2 has appeared as RW2. Although he deposed on the lines of his Written Statement but the report U/s 173 Cr.P.C. does not indicate that there was a quarrel and the deceased and some labourers attacked on the deceased driver with iron rods and shovels and when the cleaner threatened them that he was going to lodge report they fled away in panicky and met with the accident. Testimony of R1W2 also shows that the cause of the deceased driver was craniocerebral damage as a result of blunt force impact possible due to head on collision of two vehicles in road traffic accident. Facts and circumstances clearly indicate that the offending Tanker was being driven by the deceased driver in a rash and negligent manner and it after hitting the deceased Roop Chand who was working on the road as labourer hit the Road Roller resulting in the death of Suit No. : 806/10 9/24 Kailashi Vs. Vijay Kumar 10 Roop Chand. It has come on record that the Tanker was owned by respondent no.2 and it was insured with respondent no.3.
13. Issue no.1 is accordingly decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
I S S U E No. 2
14. The petitioners have claimed Rs. 20,00,000/ as compensation. 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. Suit No. : 806/10 10/24
Kailashi Vs. Vijay Kumar 11
15. In order to calculate the amount of compensation, the sum is required to be considered under the various heads :
LOSS OF DEPENDENCY :
16. PW1 has stated that the deceased was survived by her and three sons.
She stated that the deceased had been working a labour and had been earning Rs. 6000/ p.m. He was the only earning member of his family. In the instant case, no document has been filed as to the proof of his income. So, in these circumstances the wages for an unskilled person is taken for calculating the loss of dependency which as per the Schedule were Rs. 3683/ p.m. The annual income of the deceased would thus come to Rs. 3683 x 12 = 44,196/. In the case of Rakhi vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. MAC App. 390/2011, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide order dated 16.07.12 held that on the basis of judgment in Santosh Devi Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. Manu/SC/0322/2012, it can very well be said that the persons who are getting fixed salary or who are self employed as skilled / unskilled workers like Barber, Blacksmith, Cobbler, Mason, Carpenter etc. would be entitled to an increase in the income to the extent of 30% on account of inflation when the deceased or the victim is aged upto 50 years. Applying the ratio of the case (Supra), the claimants in the present case are entitled to an increase of 30% in the salary/income/wages on account of Suit No. : 806/10 11/24 Kailashi Vs. Vijay Kumar 12 inflation. Adding the future prospects the annual income comes to Rs. 44,196 + 13259 (30% of Rs. 44,196/) = Rs. 57,455/. After deducting one fourth towards personal and living expenses, the net income for calculating the loss of dependency comes to Rs. 43,091/. As per the ration card the age of the deceased at the time of accident was 37 years. It was held in the case of Sarla Verma Vs. DTC 2009 (6) Scale 129 that while calculating the dependency, the multiplier is to be applied with reference to the age of the deceased since he was married. Hence, a multiplier of '15' is taken for calculating the loss of dependency. Using multiplier of '15', the total loss of dependency comes to Rs. 43,091 x 15 = 6,46,365/ which is rounded off to Rs. 6,46,400/.
17. I therefore, award a sum of Rs. 6,46,400/ to the petitioners towards "Loss of Dependency".
LOVE AND AFFECTION :
18. Petitioners at this stage of their life lost their husband/father. The love and care which they could have got from her cannot be measured in terms of money. I therefore, award a sum of Rs. 25,000/ to the petitioners towards "Love and Affection".
Suit No. : 806/10 12/24
Kailashi Vs. Vijay Kumar 13 LOSS OF CONSORTIUM :
19. I award a sum of Rs. 10,000/ to the petitioner no.1 on account of "Loss of Consortium".
FUNERAL EXPENSES :
20. I award a sum of Rs. 10,000/ to the petitioners on account of "Funeral Expenses".
LOSS OF ESTATE :
21. I award a sum of Rs. 10,000/ to the petitioners towards "Loss of Estate".
22. The total compensation in favour of the petitioners is calculated as under :
1) LOSS OF DEPENDENCY = Rs. 6,46,400/
2) LOSS OF LOVE AND AFFECTION = Rs. 25,000/
3) FUNERAL EXPENSES = Rs. 10,000/
4) LOSS OF ESTATE = Rs. 10,000/
5) LOSS OF CONSORTIUM = Rs. 10,000/ ============ TOTAL = Rs. 7,01,400/ ============ L I A B I L I T Y
23. As the offending vehicle was being driven by the deceased driver i.e. respondent no.1 therefore, primary liability to compensate the petitioners was with that of respondent no. 1. Since the vehicle was owned by respondent Suit No. : 806/10 13/24 Kailashi Vs. Vijay Kumar 14 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 amount.
24. Ld. counsel for the respondent no.3 in his quest to exonerate the company from its liability contended that the respondent no.1 was driving the offending vehicle using a fake license and thus it is a case of violation of terms and conditions of the policy. In support of his contention he placed reliance on the report of the District Transport Officer, Darbhanga Bihar which interalia states that the license bearing no. 112/06 was in the name of Ram Brix Sahni and not in the name of Vijay Kumar.
25. Ld. counsel for the respondent no.2 on the contrary submitted that when the respondent no.2 employed the respondent no.1 on the Tanker he had checked his driving license and had also checked his driving skills. He has led evidence in this regard. ld. counsel placed reliance on the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nehru & Ors. 1 (2003) ACC 611 (SC) and National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Swarn Singh & Ors. (2004) ACJ 1 to contend that the owner at the time of hiring a driver has to check whether the driver has a driving license. If the driver produces a driving license which on Suit No. : 806/10 14/24 Kailashi Vs. Vijay Kumar 15 the face of it looks genuine, the owner is not expected to find out whether the license has in fact been issued by a competent authority or not. He would then take the test of the driver. If he finds that the driver is competent to drive the vehicle, he will hire the driver. Ld. counsel stated that the testimony of RW2 shows that he had checked the license and taken the test and thereafter, he appointed him on the Tanker.
26. I have considered the submissions and perused the record.
27. In the instant case the respondent no.3 had summoned the Licensing Authority Darbhanga Bihar. The report was received by post vide proceedings dated 13.07.12 as per which the license bearing no. 112/06 which the police had seized during the investigation was issued in the name of Ram Brix Sahni S/o Lal Bahadur Sahni and not in the name of Vijay Kumar S/o Uttam Yadav, the driver of the offending vehicle. The said report was taken on record. RW2 has stated that prior to hiring the driver namely Vijay Kumar he had enquired about his driving license and in pursuance thereon Vijay Kumar had produced a driving license in his name issued by Darbhanga Licensing Authority which appeared to be correct and genuine. He after satisfying himself about the correctness and genuineness of the driving license had asked Vijay Kumar to drive the truck. He drove the truck Suit No. : 806/10 15/24 Kailashi Vs. Vijay Kumar 16 competently as an experienced driver. After successful trial he inducted him as driver on a monthly salary of Rs. 6500/ p.m. who remained in his employment for about 45 months and did not cause any accident of whatsoever nature during that period. He denied that he has filed a false affidavit to evade his liability. No specific suggestions were put to RW2 by the respondent no.3 that he did not check the license of the respondent no.1 or his driving skills before inducting him as driver on his truck. It was held in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nehru & Ors. 1 (2003) ACC 611 (SC) that the owner at the time of hiring a driver has to check whether the driver has a driving license. If the driver produces a driving license which on the face of it looks genuine, the owner is not expected to find out whether the license has in fact been issued by a competent authority or not. He would then take the test of the driver. If he finds that the driver is competent to drive the vehicle, he will hire the driver. In the case of Lal Chand Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (2006) ACJ 2161 SC, the owner had not only seen and examined the driving license produced by the driver but also took test of the driving of the driver and found that the driver was competent to drive the vehicle and thereafter appointed him as driver of the vehicle in question. It was held that the owner had satisfied himself that the driver had a license and was driving competently so there would be no breach of Section 149 (2) (a) (ii) and the insurance company would not then Suit No. : 806/10 16/24 Kailashi Vs. Vijay Kumar 17 be absolved of its liability. In that case, National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Swarn Singh (Supra) was also referred and sub para (iii) of para 102 discussed.
"(iii) The breach of policy conditions e.g. disqualification of driver or invalid driving license of the driver, as contained in subsection (2) (a) (ii) of section 149, have to be proved to have been committed by the insured for avoiding liability by the insurer. Mere absence, fake or invalid driving license or disqualification of the driver for driving at the relevant time, are not in themselves defences available to the insured against either the insured or the third parties.
To avoid its liability towards insured, the insurer has to prove that the insured was guilty of negligence and failed to exercise reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling the condition of the policy regarding use of vehicles by duly licensed driver or one who was not disqualified to drive at the relevant time."
28. It was held that as observed in the above para the insurer has to prove that the insured, namely the owner of the vehicle was guilty of negligence and failed to exercise reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling the condition of the policy regarding use of vehicle by a duly licensed vehicle or one who was not disqualified to drive at the relevant point of time. Hon'ble Supreme Court Court allowed the appeal filed by the owner of the vehicle and absolved him from any liability. The facts of the present case are similar to the case supra. Suit No. : 806/10 17/24
Kailashi Vs. Vijay Kumar 18 In the present case also the respondent no.2 had checked the license and driving skills before appointing him as a driver on the vehicle in question. After satisfying himself that the respondent no.1 had a license and was driving competently he engaged him on the offending vehicle for 45 months. He did not observe any time prior to the aforesaid incident that he drove the offending vehicle negligently or did not exercise reasonable care. I am of the view that the respondent no.2 fulfilled the conditions of the policy regarding use of the vehicle by a duly licensed driver or one who was not disqualified to drive at the relevant point of time. I am of the view that the respondent no. 3 cannot be absolved of its liability to compensate the petitioners and no liability can be fastened on the respondent no.2, the insured since at the time of accident, the policy was valid.
29. For the foregoing reasons, Issue No. 2 is decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondent no.3.
R E L I E F
30. In view of my findings on the issues, I award a sum of Rs. 7,01,400/ (Rs.
Seven Lacs One Thousand Four Hundred only) to the petitioners as compensation with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of award.
Suit No. : 806/10 18/24
Kailashi Vs. Vijay Kumar 19 : RELEASE OF THE AWARDED AMOUNT : In the share of Petitioner No. 1 : (Wife of the deceased)
31. A sum of Rs. 5,51,400/ alongwith the proportionate interest thereon, is awarded to petitioner no. 1 being wife of the deceased.
32. Out of this awarded amount, a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/ be deposited in the form of FDR in the name of petitioner no. 1 in the following phased manner :
1. Rs. 1,00,000/ for a period of 2 years.
2. Rs. 1,00,000/ for a period of 3 years.
3. Rs. 1,00,000/ for a period of 4 years.
4. Rs. 1,00,000/ for a period of 5 years.
In the share of Petitioner No. 2 to 4: (Minor Sons of deceased)
33. A sum of Rs. 50,000/ each alongwith proportionate interest thereon, is awarded to petitioner no. 2 to 4 being sons of the deceased. This amount shall be kept in the form of FDRs till they attain the age of 18 years. Deposition of awarded amount with STATE BANK OF INDIA, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi.
34. 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 Suit No. : 806/10 19/24 Kailashi Vs. Vijay Kumar 20 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.
35. 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.
36. 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 40 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).
37. 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 : Suit No. : 806/10 20/24 Kailashi Vs. Vijay Kumar 21
(i) The interest on the fixed deposit be paid to the petitioners / claimants by Automatic Credit of interest of their saving bank account 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 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 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.
Suit No. : 806/10 21/24
Kailashi Vs. Vijay Kumar 22 DIRECTIONS FOR THE RESPONDENT NO. 3, INSURANCE COMPANY
38. The Respondent no. 3 is directed to file the compliance report of its having deposited the awarded amount with State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch in this tribunal within a period of 40 days from today.
39. The Respondent 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.
40. The Respondent no. 3 shall intimate to the claimants/petitioners about its having deposited the cheques in favor of the petitioners in terms of the award, at the address of the petitioner mentioned at the title of the award, so as to facilitate them to withdraw the same.
41. 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.
Suit No. : 806/10 22/24
Kailashi Vs. Vijay Kumar 23
42. Copy of this Award / Judgment be given to counsel for the Insurance Company for necessary compliance.
43. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court
on 29th Day of September 2012 (SANJIV JAIN )
Presiding Officer : MACT02
South Distt. : Saket Courts
New Delhi : 29.09.2012
Suit No. : 806/10 23/24
Kailashi Vs. Vijay Kumar
24
Kailashi Vs. Vijay Kumar & Ors.
Suit No. : 806/10
29.09.2012
Present : None.
Vide separate order of even date an Award for 7,01,400/ (Rs. Seven Lacs One Thousand Four Hundred only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the petition till the date of realisation of the amount is passed in favour of petitioners and against the respondent no.3.
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 : 29.09.2012 Suit No. : 806/10 24/24