Delhi District Court
Malti Devi & Ors. vs . Kapil Swami & Ors. on 21 January, 2021
MACP no.6758/16
Malti Devi & Ors. Vs. Kapil Swami & ors.
IN THE COURT OF SH. DEVENDER KUMAR JANGALA,
PRESIDING OFFICER, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
MAC Petition No. 6758/16
Malti Devi & Ors. Vs. Kapil Swami & Ors.
1. Smt. Malti Devi ....Widow
W/o Late Sh. Ramesh Kumar Jakta
2. Smt. Shivchandi ....Mother
W/o Late Sh. Govind Ram
3. Sh. Naveen Kumar ....Major Son
S/o Late Sh. Ramesh Kumar Jakta
4. Sh. Ashish Kumar .... Major Son
S/o Late Sh. Ramesh Kumar Jakta
All R/o 62/1, Kaghasu, Shimla
Himachal Pradesh171206
................Petitioners
VERSUS
1. Sh.Kapil Swami
S/o Sh. Hari Parkash
R/o House no. 1450, Panna Papposian
Narela, Delhi ....Driver
2. Sh. Hari Parkash
S/o Sh. Sawroop Singh
R/o House no. 1450, Panna Papposian
Narela, Delhi ...... owner
3. IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd.
1st Floor, Sohan Singh Complex
Near Railway Crossing, Shastri Nagar,
Ludhiana Punjab. .... Insurer
...............Respondents
Page no.1 of total 16 MACP no.6758/16 Malti Devi & Ors. Vs. Kapil Swami & ors.
Date of Institution :06.09.2016 Date of Arguments : 05.01.2021 Date of Decision : 21.01.2021 APPEARANCES: Sh.Omkar Singh, Advocate on behalf of petitioners.
Sh. Anand Bhardwaj, Ld.counsel for respondents no.1 and 2 the driver and owner.
Sh. S.K.Tyagi, Advocate on behalf of respondent no.3/insurance Company.
Petition under Section 166 & 140 of M.V. Act, 1988 for grant of compensation AWARD
1. The petitioners are seeking compensation for the fatal injuries suffered by Sh. Ramesh Kumar Jakta, in the wake of Detailed Accident Report (DAR) filed by police corresponding to the investigation carried out in case FIR No.456/16, U/s 279/337/304A IPC registered at PS Alipur with regard to Motor Vehicular Accident which occurred on 08.08.2016 at about 4.30 PM at Main GTK Road, Alipur, Delhi involving the Skoda car bearing registration no.DL6CM 1808(alleged offending vehicle) being driven by respondent no.1 Sh. Kapil Swami in rash and negligent manner. Detailed Accident Report (hereinafter called DAR) filed by police, was treated as claim petition under Section 166(4) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'MV Act').
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 08.08.2016 the deceased Sh. Ramesh Kumar Jakta alongwith other occupants was travelling in the Zylo car bearing no. HR69B3227 and at about 4.30PM when they reached nearby Shani Mandir, Main GTK Road, Alipur, Delhi, in the meantime one Skoda Rapid Car bearing registration no. DL6CM1808 being driven in a rash and negligent manner by respondent no.1 Sh. Kapil Swami hit the zylo car, due to which said car was misbalanced and flip over several times and everyone in the said car received Page no.2 of total 16 MACP no.6758/16 Malti Devi & Ors. Vs. Kapil Swami & ors.
injuries. The police reached at the spot and removed the injured persons to nearby SRHC hospital. Thereafter the deceased Sh. Ramesh Kumar Jakta was removed to Max hospital where he was treated and expired during treatment. That the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of alleged Skokda Rapid Car bearing registration no. DL6CM1808. That the case vide FIR no. 456/16, under Section 279/337/304A IPC was registered at PS Alipur, Delhi with regard to the said accident. That the alleged Skokda Rapid Car bearing registration no. DL6CM1808 was owned by Sh. Hari Parkash and was insured with IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company ltd. at the relevant time of accident.
3. Respondents have appeared in response to the notice of DAR issued by Investigating Officer. In their joint written statement the respondents no.1 and 2 have stated that the accident was caused due to sole negligence of driver of Xylo car. It is stated that the alleged Skokda Rapid Car bearing registration no. DL 6CM1808 was insured with respondent no.3 at the relevant time of accident and respondent no.1 was holding valid driving licence, hence the liability, if any to pay compensation is of respondent no.3. The averments on merits are denied. It is denied that the respondents driver and owner are liable to pay compensation.
4. Respondent no.3/insurance company filed written statement/reply thereby admitting therein that the Skokda Rapid Car bearing registration no. DL6CM1808 was insured with it at the relevant time of accident. The insurance company has calculated the compensation amount as Rs.30,27,020/. It is however stated that the petitioners have received a sum of Rs.2,00,000/ from the employer of deceased and the said amount is liable to deducted from the compensation amount. The insurance company has offered a sum of Rs.28,27,020/ + medical bills of Rs.27,007/ as compensation to the petitioners.
Page no.3 of total 16 MACP no.6758/16 Malti Devi & Ors. Vs. Kapil Swami & ors.
5. The offer given by insurance company was not accepted by the petitioners and matter was proceeded on merits. From pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by my Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 20.04.2017:
1. Whether the deceased Mr. Ramesh Kumar Jakta had suffered fatal injuries in road traffic accident on 08.08.2016 at 4.30 PM at Main GTK Road, Alipur, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Alipur due to rashness and negligence on the part of the driver Sh. Kapil Swami who was driving car bearing registration no.DL6CM1808, owned by Sh. Hari Parkash and insured with IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd.?OPP.
2. Whether the LRs of deceased are entitled to any compensation, if so to what amount and from whom?
OPP.
3. Relief.
6. In support of their claim, the petitioners have examined six witness i.e. the claimant Smt. Malti Jakta as PW1, Sh. Parmod Sharma, the eyewitness of the accident as PW2, Sh. Amar Singh, Training Assistant from the Office of Director/Principal Government College of Pharmacy, Rohru, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh as PW3, Sh. Ashish Jakta, son of deceased as PW4, Sh. Amar Singh, Accountant from Government Pharmacy College, Rohru, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh as PW5 and Sh. Naveen Kumar, son of deceased as PW6. No other witness was examined by petitioners and PE was closed on 06.03.2020 on the submission of counsel for petitioners. On the other hand respondents have not examined any witness despite opportunities and RE was closed vide order dated 08.04.2019.
7. I have already heard the arguments addressed by Sh.Omkar Singh, Ld.counsel for petitioners and Sh. S.K. Tyagi, ld.counsel for respondent Page no.4 of total 16 MACP no.6758/16 Malti Devi & Ors. Vs. Kapil Swami & ors.
no.3/insurance company. None has appeared to submit arguments on behalf of respondents driver and owner despite opportunities. I have also gone through the record. My findings on the issues are as under: ISSUE NO. 1
8. In order to prove the negligence of driver of offending vehicle the petitioners have examined Sh. Parmod Sharma, the driver of Xylo car as PW2 and Sh.Ashish Jakta, son of deceased who was travelling with the deceased at the time of accident as PW4. PW2 Sh. Parmod Sharma, has deposed that he was driving the Xylo Car the time of accident and when they reached near Shani Mandir, one Skoda car came from backside, being driven in a zig zag manner and hit his car from the backside, due to which his car got disbalanced. He deposed that due to accident, his car got overturned and the persons sitting in his car sustained injuries. They were removed to hospital by public persons and police. He deposed that the public persons had told him that the driver of Skoda Car was driving his car a very high speed and in zigzag manner. In the crossexamination he admitted that he had not seen the driver of Skoda car the time of causing the accident. Thereafter he voluntarily stated that he had seen the driver of Skoda car after the accident as he has also sustained injuries in the accident. He denied the suggestion that the Skoda car was not being driven at the high speed and there was no fault on the part of respondent no.1.
9. PW4 Sh. Ashish Jakta, adduced evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW4/A. In his affidavit he deposed that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of Skoda Rapid Car bearing registration no. DL6CM1808 by respondent no.1. he deposed that if the driver of Skoda car had been careful and cautious, the accident could have avoided. In the crossexamination he denied the suggestion that the driver of their car was driving in rash and negligent manner or Page no.5 of total 16 MACP no.6758/16 Malti Devi & Ors. Vs. Kapil Swami & ors.
that there was no negligence on the part of driver of Skoda Car. He further denied the suggestion that the accident took place solely due to negligence of Xylo car.
10. It is evident from the testimony of PW2 and PW4 that the respondents could not impeach their testimony through litmus test of cross examination and said witnesses are found to have successfully withstood the test of crossexamination. There is no reason as to why they would depose falsely against respondent no.1.
11. It is pertinent to note that the respondent no.1/driver of aforesaid Skoda Rapid Car bearing registration no. DL6CM1808 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. Thus, an adverse inference is liable to be drawn against him to the effect that the accident in question occurred due to rash and negligent driving of alleged Skoda Rapid Car bearing registration no. DL6CM1808 by him.
12. Moreover, the respondent no. 1 namely Sh. Kapil Swami(accused in State case) has been charge sheeted for offences punishable U/s 279/338/304A IPC by the investigating agency after arriving at the conclusion on the basis of investigation carried out by it that the accident in question had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of offending Skoda Rapid Car bearing registration no. DL6CM1808 by him. Same would also point out towards rash and negligent driving of aforesaid car by respondent no.1. Furthermore, the insurance company has also filed offer of settlement, thereby not disputing the negligence on the part of respondent no.1.
13. Further, the postmortem report of the deceased prepared at Page no.6 of total 16 MACP no.6758/16 Malti Devi & Ors. Vs. Kapil Swami & ors.
BJRM Hospital shows the cause of death due to head injury as a result of blunt force impact and the other documents including MLC of deceased Sh.Ramesh Kumar shows that he was taken to hospital immediately after the accident which the alleged history of RTA. Again, there is no challenge to the said document from the side of respondents.
14. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the evidence which has come on record, it is held that the petitioners have been able to prove that the deceased Sh.Ramesh Kumar Jakta died in road accident which took place on 08.08.2016 at about 4.30 PM near Shani Mandir, Main GTK Road, Alipur, Delhi due to rash and negligent driving of the Skoda car bearing registration no.DL6CM 1808 by respondent no.1 Sh. Kapil Swami. Thus, issue no. 1 is decided in favour of petitioners and against the respondents.
ISSUE NO. 2.
15. Section 168 of the Act enjoins the Claims Tribunal to hold an inquiry into the claim to make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just and reasonable. It has to be borne in mind that the compensation is not expected to be a windfall or a bonanza nor it should be niggardly.
COMPENSATION LOSS OF DEPENDENCY
16. The claimants are the widow, mother and sons of deceased. The petitioner no.1/widow of deceased appeared in witness box as PW1. She deposed that her husband was aged about 52 years at the time of accident and he was working as Laboratory Assistant in Pharmacy College, Rohru, Himachal Pradesh and was getting salary of Rs.35,000/ per month and he was also working Page no.7 of total 16 MACP no.6758/16 Malti Devi & Ors. Vs. Kapil Swami & ors.
as farmer and was earning a sum of Rs.15,000/ additionally from his farming work. She further deposed that the deceased was dedicated to his duties and had clean record. She deposed that all the petitioners were dependent upon the deceased and the life of the petitioners has become dark and gloomy due to sudden demise of deceased.
17. It is argued on behalf of insurance company that the petitioners no.2 and 3 are major sons of deceased and hence they were not financially dependent upon the deceased and petitioners no.1 and 2 be only considered as dependent upon the deceased.
18. Per contra. It is argued on behalf of petitioners that the petitioners no. 3 and 4 through are major but they are not earning hand and were financially dependent and hence the deceased was survived by four dependents.
19. It is an admitted fact that the petitioners no.3 and 4 four were major aged about 24 and 26 years at the time of accident. In the considered opinion of this tribunal the petitioners no.3 and 4 the major sons of deceased are not considered as dependent upon the deceased and hence, it is held that the deceased was survived by two dependents i.e. petitioners no.1 and 2.
20. In order to prove the employment and income of deceased the petitioners have examined PW3 Sh. Amar Singh, Training Assistant from the Office of Director/Principal, Government College of Pharmacy, Rohru, Teh. Rohru, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh who proved on record the attendance record, copy of first appointment letter, salary record from March 2016 to 08.08.2016 as Ex. PW3/1(colly). In view of deposition of PW3 and documents produced on record, I have no hesitation to hold that the deceased was working as Lab Assistant with Page no.8 of total 16 MACP no.6758/16 Malti Devi & Ors. Vs. Kapil Swami & ors.
Government College of Pharmacy, Rohru,District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh and his gross salary was Rs.33,238/ in the month of July, 2016. Though it is argued on behalf of petitioners that the deceased was also earning a sum of Rs.15,000/ per month from his agriculture business, but there is nothing on record to prove that the deceased was possessing any agricultural land and the income therefrom. Hence, I am not inclined to accept the claim of petitioners with regard to income from agriculture to be included in the gross income for the calculations of loss of dependency.
21. It is argued on behalf of petitioner though the deceased had drawn aforesaid salary at the time of his death, but due to implementation of Seventh Pay Commission w.e.f. 01.01.2016, the salary of the deceased was revised and the loss of dependency is to be calculated taking into consideration the recommendations of Seventh Pay Commission. Though it is true that the Government of India has implemented recommendations of Seventh Pay Commission w.e.f 01.01.2016 but PW5 Sh. Amar Singh has produced one letter dated 02.03.2020 issued from the Office of Director/Principal, Government College of Pharmacy, Rohru, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh informing this tribunal that the Seventh Pay Commission has not been implemented in the State of Himachal Pradesh till the date of said letter i.e. 02.03.2020. In these circumstances, I am not inclined to accept the claim of petitioners that the compensation is to be calculated as per revised salary in terms of recommendations of Seventh Pay Commission. Hence, the income of the deceased for the calculations of loss of dependency is taken as Rs.33,238/ per month(Rs.3,98,856/ Per annum). From the aforesaid amount actual income tax is to be deducted. As per income tax slab for financial year 201617, there was Nil tax till the income of Rs.2,50,000/ and 10% tax for the income tax till the income of Rs.5,00,000/. The actual income tax thus comes to Rs.14,800/. The income of deceased after deduction of income tax comes to Page no.9 of total 16 MACP no.6758/16 Malti Devi & Ors. Vs. Kapil Swami & ors.
Rs.3,84,056/ per annum.
22. It is stated that the deceased was aged about 52 years at the time of accident. The Copy of matriculation certificate of the deceased shows his date of birth to be 10.05.1965. hence the deceased was aged about 51 years and three months at the time of accident. Thus, the multiplier of 11 would be applicable in view of recent pronouncement made by Constitutional Bench of Apex Court in the case titled as "National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors." passed in SLP(Civil) No. 25590/14 decided on 31.10.17.
23. Considering the fact that deceased was above 50 years of age and was a government servant, future prospects @ 15% has to be awarded in favour of petitioners in view of recent pronouncement made by Constitutional Bench of Apex Court in the case titled as "National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors." mentioned supra, as well as in view of recent decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in appeal bearing MAC APP No. 798/2011 titled as "Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pooja & Ors", decided on 02.11.17.
24. Since the deceased was survived by two dependents, 1/3rd is liable to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of deceased. Thus, the total of loss of dependency would come out to Rs.32,38,872/(rounded of Rs.32,39,000/) (Rs. 384056X2/3X 115/100 X11). Hence, a sum of Rs.32,39,000/ is awarded under this head in favour of the petitioners.
LOSS OF LOVE & AFFECTION
25. After the celebrated judgment of "National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. mentioned supra and recent judgment Page no.10 of total 16 MACP no.6758/16 Malti Devi & Ors. Vs. Kapil Swami & ors.
titled New India Assurance Company Limited versus Somwati & Ors., Civil Appeal no. 3093 of 2020 dated 07.09.2020 the petitioners are not entitled to be compensated under this head. Further Hon'ble Delhi High Court in appeal titled as "Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pooja & Ors", mentioned supra has been pleased to observe in para 18 of the judgment that the constitution bench decision in Pranay Sethi (supra) does not recognize any other nonpecuniary head of damages. Hence, no amount of compensation is being awarded under this head.
LOSS OF CONSORTIUM
26. In view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as New India Assurance Company Limited versus Somwati & Ors., Civil Appeal no. 3093 of 2020, dated 07.09.2020 I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner no.1/widow of deceased, petitioner no.2/mother and petitioners no.3 and 4/sons are entitled for payment of Rs. 40,000/ each towards loss of consortium. Consequently a sum of Rs.1,60,000/ is awarded to the petitioners under this head.
LOSS OF ESTATE & FUNERAL EXPENSES
27. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case and in view of decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors." mentioned supra, a sum of Rs. 15,000/ each is awarded in favour of petitioners on account of loss of estate and funeral expenses.
MEDICAL EXPENSES
28. It is argued that the deceased has expired during the course of his treatment at Max Hospital and the petitioners incurred a sum of Rs.27,007/. on the medical treatment of deceased. In order to prove the expenditure on medical treatment the petitioners have relied upon the medical bill Ex. PW1/9. It is quite Page no.11 of total 16 MACP no.6758/16 Malti Devi & Ors. Vs. Kapil Swami & ors.
evident that the respondents have not disputed the authenticity and genuineness of the said medical bills during the course of inquiry. Respondents have also not led any evidence in rebuttal so as to create any doubt on the geuineness of said bill. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.27,007/ is awarded to the petitioner under this head The total compensation is assessed as under:
1. Loss of dependency Rs. 32,39,000/
2. Loss of Love and affection Rs. NIL
3. Loss of Consortium Rs. 1,60,000/
4. Loss of Estate &Funeral Rs. 30,000/ Expenses
5. Medical Expenditure Rs. 27,007/ Total Rs. 34,56,007/ Rounded of Rs. 34,56,000/
29. It is argued on behalf of insurance company that the petitioners have also received a sum of Rs.2,00,000/ from the employer of deceased and the said amount is liable to be deducted from the award amount. In support of his submission Ld.counsel for insurance company has placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High court in MAC. APP. No. 501/2004 titled as Kusum Jugram & Ors. Vs Sanju Boro & ors.
30. It is not in dispute that the petitioners have received the aforesaid amount of Rs.2,00,000/ from the employer of deceased. However, in the considered opinion of this tribunal the said amount is not liable to be deducted from the award amount. The case law (supra) relied upon by Ld.counsel for insurance company is not applicable to the present case as in the present case PW3 Sh. Amar Singh has clearly deposed that the said amount is also to be released in a natural death. The insurance company has not led any evidence to prove that the said amount of Rs.2,00,000/ was paid to the Lrs of deceased only in the accidental Page no.12 of total 16 MACP no.6758/16 Malti Devi & Ors. Vs. Kapil Swami & ors.
death.
31. Now, the question which arises for determination is as to which of the respondents is liable to pay the compensation amount. Respondent no.3/insurance company has not proved any violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy. Respondent no.1/driver is principal tort feasor. Respondent no.2/owner is vicarously liable for the act of respondent no.1/driver. Respondent no.3 being the insurer is liable to indemnify the insured. Hence, respondent no.3/insurance company is held liable to pay compensation amount. Issue no. 2 is decided accordingly.
ISSUE NO.3 RELIEF
32. Vide order dated 14.08.2019, interest on the award amount was closed from the date of filing of application i.e. 07.06.2019 till conclusion of additional evidence. Additional evidence was concluded on 06.03.2020. hence the petitioners are not entitled to interest from 07.06.2019 till 06.03.2020. In view of findings on issue no.1(supra) the petitioners are awarded a sum of Rs.34,56,000/ (including interim award amount if any) alongwith interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f date of filing the petition i.e.06.09.2016 till the date of its realization except the aforesaid period from 07.06.2019 till 06.03.2020, in favour of Lrs of deceased/petitioners and against the respondents. (Reliance placed on judgment "Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sangeeta Devi & Ors" bearing MAC. APP. 165/2011 decided on 22.02.2016).
APPORTIONMENT
33. Statements of legal heirs of deceased/in terms of Clause 29 MCTAP was recorded on different dates. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, out of the award amount a sum of Rs.8,00,000/(Rs.Eight Lacs) alongwith Page no.13 of total 16 MACP no.6758/16 Malti Devi & Ors. Vs. Kapil Swami & ors.
proportionate interest is awarded in favour of petitioner no.2 mother of deceased. An amount of Rs.40,000/ each alongwith proportionate interest(the amount awarded towards consortium) is awarded in favour of petitioner no.3 and 4 major sons of deceased. Remaining Rs.25,76,000/ alongwith proportionate interest is awarded in favour of petitioner no.1/widow of deceased.
34. Out of the share amount of petitioner no.1, a sum of Rs.2,00,000/ (Rupees Two Lacs only) is directed to be immediately released to her through her bank account no. 38024710310 with SBI having IFSC Code no. SBIN0051338 and remaining amount is directed to be kept in the form of FDRs in the multiples of Rs. 15,000/ each for one month, two months, three months and so on and so forth having cumulative interest.
35. Out of the share amount of petitioner no.2 a sum of Rs.1,00,000/ (Rupees One Lakh only) is directed to be immediately released to her through her saving bank account i.e.A/c No.30792538792 with SBI and remaining amount is directed to be kept in the form of FDRs in the multiples of Rs.20,000/ each for one month, two months, three months and so on and so forth having cumulative interest.
36. Entire share amount of petitioners no.3 and 4 be released to them through their respective saving account i.e. A/c no. 38104957802 with SBI having IFSC Code no. SBIN0051338 of petitioner Sh. Naveen Jakta and A/c no. 38024700107 with SBI having IFSC Code no. SBIN0051338 of petitioner Sh.Ashish Kumar.
37. All the FDRs to be prepared as per aforesaid directions, shall be subject to the following conditions: Page no.14 of total 16 MACP no.6758/16 Malti Devi & Ors. Vs. Kapil Swami & ors.
(a) The Bank shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of the claimant(s) i.e. the savings bank account(s) of the claimant(s) shall be an individual savings bank account(s) and not a joint account(s).
(b) The original fixed deposit shall be retained by the bank in safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by bank to the claimant(s).
(c) The monthly interest be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant(s) near the place of their residence.
(d) The maturity amounts of the FDR(s) be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant(s) near the place of their residence.
(e) No loan, advance, withdrawal or premature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the Court.
(f) The concerned bank shall not to issue any cheque book and/or debit card to claimant(s). However, in case the debit card and /or cheque book have already been issued, bank shall cancel the same before the disbursement of the award amount. The bank shall debit card(s) freeze the account of the claimant(s) so that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of the claimant(s) from any other branch of the bank.
(g) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the claimant(s) to the effect that no cheque book and/or debit card have been issued and shall not be issued without the permission of the Court and claimant(s) shall produce the passbook with the necessary endorsement before the Court on the next date fixed for compliance.
(h) It is clarified that the endorsement made by the bank alongwith the duly signed and stamped by the bank official on the passbook(s) of the claimant(s) is sufficient compliance of clause(g) above.
(i) The petitioner is directed to open a Motor Accident Claims Annuity (Term) Deposit Account (MACAD) in terms of order dated 07.12.2018 of Hon'ble Justice J.R. Midha in case titled as Rajesh Tyagi and Others Vs. Jaibir Singh and Others F.A.O No. 842/03 as per clause 31 of MCTAP and form VIII titled as Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit (MACAD) Scheme as directed in the said order.
(j) Concerned Manager, SBI, Rohini Court branch is further directed to Page no.15 of total 16 MACP no.6758/16 Malti Devi & Ors. Vs. Kapil Swami & ors.
disburse the FD amount in Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit (MACAD) Scheme account as directed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 07.12.18, on completing necessary formalities as per rules.
38. Respondent no.3/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the award amount, in terms of aforesaid directions with SBI, Rohini Courts branch within 30 days as per above order, failing which it shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a for the period of delay. Concerned Manager, SBI, Rohini Court Branch is directed to transfer the amount in the bank accounts of petitioners, in terms of aforesaid directions, on completing necessary formalities as per rules. He be further directed to keep the said amount in fixed deposit in its own name till the claimants approach the bank for disbursement so that the award amount starts earning interest from the date of clearance of the cheques. Copy of the award be given dasti to the petitioners and insurance company. Copy of this award alongwith one photograph each, specimen signatures, copy of bank passbooks and copy of residence proof of the petitioners, be sent to Nodal Officer of SBI, Rohini Court, Branch, Delhi for information and necessary compliance. Form V & Form IVA in terms of MCTAP are annexed herewith as AnnexureA. Copy of order be also sent to concerned M.M and DLSA as per clause 31 and 32 of MCTAP.
Digitally signed by
DEVENDER DEVENDER
Announced in the open KUMAR KUMAR JANGALA
Date: 2021.01.21
Court on 21.01.2021 JANGALA 16:55:21 +0800
(DEVENDER KUMAR JANGALA)
Judge MACT2 (North)
Rohini Courts, Delhi
Certified that above award contains 16 pages and each page is signed by me.
(DEVENDER KUMAR JANGALA) Judge MACT2 (North) Rohini Courts, Delhi Page no.16 of total 16