Delhi District Court
Sh. Madhav Prasad Maurya vs Sh. Kulvir Singh on 21 September, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SHRI ARUN BHARDWAJ
PRESIDING OFFICER: MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNALII,
DWARKA COURTS: NEW DELHI
MACT No. 118/12/09
IN THE MATTER OF :
Sh. Madhav Prasad Maurya,
S/o Late Shri Inder Bahadur Maurya,
R/o K18, Old Rangpuri Road,
Mahipalpur,
New Delhi - 110 037.
... Petitioner
Versus
1. Sh. Kulvir Singh, (Driver)
S/o Shri Inder Singh,
R/o 580, Vill. Ladpur,
Delhi - 81.
2. Sh. Naresh Chand, (Insurer)
S/o Shri Inder Singh,
R/o K6, D14, Mahipalpur,
New Delhi.
3. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., (Insurer)
60, Okhla Indl. Area, Phase3,
Near Modi Mill Flyover, New Delhi.
Also At: 13081310, 13th Floor,
38, Ansal Tower, Nehru Place,
New Delhi.
... Respondents
Filed on : 08.07.2009
Reserved on : 12.09.2012
Decided on : 21.09.2012
MACT No. 118/12/09 Sh. Madhav Prasad Maurya v. Sh. Kulvir Singh & Ors. Page No. 1of19
J U D G M E N T:
1. This is a claim petition which is filed under Section 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for grant of compensation.
2. Respondent No. 1 is the driver, Respondent No. 2 is the owner and Respondent No. 3 is the insurer of the offending vehicle.
3. It is stated in this claim petition that on 21.03.2009, petitioner was going to take milk and when he reached near Mahipalpur Chowk, New Delhi at about 8:15 hrs., offending vehicle bearing No. DL IV 7398 which was driven by Respondent No. 1 in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed, came suddenly and hit the petitioner with a great force. Due to this forceful impact, petitioner fell down on the road and sustained grievous multiple injuries. Petitioner was removed to AIIMS, New Delhi, where his MLC was prepared by the doctors and he was treated for the injuries suffered by him in the accident. It is stated that petitioner was 37 years of age and was employed as Security Guard in RJ Public School and was earning Rs. 4,000/ per month.
4. Therefore, petitioner has claimed a compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/ with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization.
5. It is stated that FIR No. 127/09 under Section 279/337 of IPC in P.S. IGI Airport is registered against Respondent No. 1 and petitioner till date of filing of this claim petition has already spent Rs. 50,000/ on his treatment.
6. A common written statement was filed by Respondent No. 1 and 2 where it was stated that the petitioner did not suffer any MACT No. 118/12/09 Sh. Madhav Prasad Maurya v. Sh. Kulvir Singh & Ors. Page No. 2of19 injuries due to negligence on the part of answering respondents and claim petition is liable to be dismissed.
7. It is further stated that the offending vehicle was duly insured with Respondent No. 3 and as such the liability, if any, is that of Respondent No. 3 and not of the answering respondents.
8. Rest of the contents of claim petition were denied stating that compensation claimed is exaggerated.
9. Respondent No. 3 filed its written statement and stated that the answering respondent is impleaded as party respondent on the basis of Policy No. 108001184177 issued w.e.f. 18.03.2009 to 17.03.2010 in respect of Vehicle No. DL IV 7398.
10. It is stated that the previous insurance particulars furnished by the owner of the vehicle purported to have been issued by IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company were the basis of the contract which was accepted in a good faith and necessary confirmation was sought by answering respondent Insurance company to find out the genuineness of this information.
11. It is stated that the answering respondent was informed by the previous insurer i.e. IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance that the Cover Note No. 10522704 in question is not issued in respect of Vehicle No. DL IV 7398.
12. It is stated that the cover note issued by Respondent No. 3 was seized by IO on 24.08.2009 i.e. after almost a month of the accident which proves that the vehicle was not insured at the time of accident.
13. It is stated that the intention of the owner of alleged MACT No. 118/12/09 Sh. Madhav Prasad Maurya v. Sh. Kulvir Singh & Ors. Page No. 3of19 vehicle behind producing a manipulated cover not purported to have been issued by IFFCO TOKO before the Respondent No. 3 was to show the continuation of the policy, to avoid preinspection of his vehicle which might have met with an accident by the time insured had taken the cover note in question.
14. It is stated that material particulars furnished by the owner of the vehicle were found to be fake on the basis of which said cover note was issued and therefore the contract of insurance has become void.
15. It is stated that answering respondent has issued the policy to cover the risk of offending vehicle bearing Registration No. DL IV 7398 for a period from 18.03.2009 to 17.03.2010 on the basis of misrepresentations and fraud played by the insured.
16. Therefore, the policy has become null and void abinitio. It is stated that letter dated 08.06.2011 was sent by registered post to the owner of the vehicle to declare the policy null and void.
17. It is stated that the compensation claimed is exorbitant and in case it is found that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid driving license at the time of alleged accident, insurance company will have no liability to pay the compensation.
18. It is clarified in the written statement that Policy No. 108001184177 was issued in the name of Shri Naresh Chand, on the basis of a fake Cover Note No. 36010906 issued by IFFCO TOKIO for a period from 18.03.2009 to 17.03.2010 which after verification from IFFCO TOKIO was found to be fake as the said cover note did not MACT No. 118/12/09 Sh. Madhav Prasad Maurya v. Sh. Kulvir Singh & Ors. Page No. 4of19 belong to the said insurance company.
19. It is stated that the insured, with malafide intentions, produced fake previous cover note to avoid preinspection of the vehicle.
20. Rest of the contents of claim petition were denied.
21. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed: i. Whether petitioner Madhav Prasad Maurya had sustained injuries on his person in an accident which took place on 21.03.2009 due to the negligent driving of bus bearing registration no. DLIV7398 was being driven by respondent no. 1, owned by respondent no. 2 and insured with respondent no. 3?
.......... OPP.
ii. In case, issue no. 1 is decided in favour of the petitioner, to what amount of compensation he is entitled to and from whom? ............ OPP.
iii. Relief.
22. On behalf of petitioners, three witnesses were examined.
23. Petitioner himself entered in the witness box as PW1 and stated similar facts in his evidence by way of affidavit as were already stated by him in claim petition.
24. Discharge summary of JPN Apex Trauma Centre where petitioner was admitted from 21.03.09 to 27.03.09 was proved as Ex. PW1/1, OPD tickets of the said hospital with receipts for purchase of medicines and treatment record of VMMC and Safdarjang Hospital, New Delhi were proved as Ex. PW1/231, details of special diet etc. MACT No. 118/12/09 Sh. Madhav Prasad Maurya v. Sh. Kulvir Singh & Ors. Page No. 5of19 were proved as Ex. PW1/3235, disability certificate was proved as Ex. PW1/36.
25. In cross examination, petitioner deposed that he had sustained head injuries besides sustaining injuries on his face and other parts of his body. Some of his teeth have become week after the accident and he remained hospitalised for 13/14 days and incurred a sum of Rs. 5 lacs on his treatment but he has not placed on record bills of this much amount.
26. He denied a suggestion that the accident has taken place due to his own negligence and also denied the allegations that he has not lost any earning power due to injuries sustained in this accident.
27. Wife of the petitioner entered in the witness box as PW2. Disability certificate given to the petitioner by DDU Hospital was exhibited as Ex. PW2/A. As per this, from Ophthalmic point of view visual disability of petitioner is 30% which is permanent and cosmetic disability due to fixed convergent squint is 10%.
28. As per another disability certificate, petitioner's right pinna was found deformed but his hearing test showed normal hearing. He had no hearing disability.
29. Third witness examined on behalf of petitioner was Dr. Rajesh Hans, an eye specialist from DDU Hospital who has examined the petitioner and signed disability certificate Ex. PW2/A as a member of Medical Board. He deposed that the disability is only in one eye i.e. right eye and petitioner is a case of convergent squint i.e. invert deviation of the right eye. He clarified that disability is MACT No. 118/12/09 Sh. Madhav Prasad Maurya v. Sh. Kulvir Singh & Ors. Page No. 6of19 permanent and incurable.
30. On behalf of insurance company, their Investigator Sh. Sanjeev Arora was examined as R3W1 who deposed that he was requested by insurance company to verify cover note no. 36010906 issued by IFFCO TOKIO vide Email dated 11.05.11.
31. He had requested Branch Manager of IFFCO TOKIO to verify the said cover note.
32. Print out of Email calling upon him to verify the cover note and request made by him to IFFCO TOKIO were proved as Ex. R3W1/1 and 2 respectively.
33. The report given to this Investigator by IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd. was proved as Ex. R3W1/3 and report given by this Investigator was proved as Ex. R3W1/4.
34. As per Ex. R3W1/3, it was stated on behalf of IFFCO TOKIO General Ins. Co. Ltd. that the said cover note does not belong to their branch (FA 116).
35. Second witness examined on behalf of insurance company was its Dy. Manager (Legal) who stated that on 08.06.11, a legal notice was sent to the insurer as well as to Dy. Director, Zonal Office. As per this notice, cover note no. 108001184177 was declared as void abinitio.
36. These notices were proved as Ex. R3W2/12.
37. Postal receipts were proved as Ex. R3W2/3 and 4.
38. He deposed that thus the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation as insurance was obtained on the basis of forged cover note for the period prior to their insurance.
MACT No. 118/12/09 Sh. Madhav Prasad Maurya v. Sh. Kulvir Singh & Ors. Page No. 7of19
39. Arguments were addressed by Sh. Virender Kumar, learned Counsel for petitioner and Sh. Anupam Yashovardhan, learned Counsel for insurance company.
40. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, evidence on record and arguments addressed, issuewise findings are as under: ISSUE NO.1:
41. Burden of proof that the offending vehicle was being driven rashly and negligently is always on the petitioner.
42. It is rather sine qua non.
43. To succeed in a claim petition filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act claimants have to show that the offending vehicle was being driven rashly and negligently.
44. Petitioner himself is an eye witness. He has stated in claim petition as well in his evidence by way of affidavit that on 21.03.09, at around 8.15 hours, a vehicle i.e. Mini Bus bearing registration no. DLIV7398, driven by respondent no. 1 in a rash and negligent manner had hit him with a great force resulting in grievous injuries. Although, respondent no. 1 stated in his written statement that injured person did not suffer any injury due to negligence on his part but he did not cross examine the petitioner on the point of negligence attributed to him.
45. Respondent no. 1 also did not enter in the witness box to prove his innocence.
46. Perusal of site plan shows that petitioner was on the extreme left side of the road and even then he was hit by the offending vehicle which cannot be caused except due to rash and negligent MACT No. 118/12/09 Sh. Madhav Prasad Maurya v. Sh. Kulvir Singh & Ors. Page No. 8of19 driving of respondent no. 1.
47. It is a settled law that test of negligence in a claim petition filed under Motor Vehicles Act is of preponderance of probabilities and not beyond all reasonable doubts as is in a criminal case.
48. In the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Vijay Laxmi & Ors.: MAC APP. No. 375/06 dated 05.07.12 the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held as under: "8. In Bimla Devi and Ors. v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and Ors., (2009) 13 SC 530, the Supreme Court held that in a petition under Section 166 of the Act, the Claimants were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and holistic view is to be taken while dealing with the Claim Petition under the Motor Vehicles Act. Para 15 of the report is extracted hereunder: "15. 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."
9. The report in Bimla Devi (Supra) was relied on by the Supreme Court in its latest judgments in Parmeshwari v. Amir Chand (2011) 11 SCC 635 and Kusum Lata v. Satbir, (2011) 3 SCC 646."
49. In the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pushpa Rana & Ors.: 2009 ACJ 287 the Hon'ble High Court has held that: MACT No. 118/12/09 Sh. Madhav Prasad Maurya v. Sh. Kulvir Singh & Ors. Page No. 9of19 "The last contention of the appellant insurance company is that the respondentsclaimants 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 Apex Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Meena Variyal (Supra). On perusal of the award of the Tribunal, it becomes clear that the wife of the deceased had produced: (i) certified copy of the criminal record of criminal case in F.I.R No. 955 of 2004, pertaining to involvement of the offending vehicle; (ii) criminal record showing completion of investigation of police and issue of chargesheet under Sections 279/304A, Indian Penal Code against the driver;
(iii) certified copy of F.I.R., 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 the 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. There is ample evidence on record to prove negligence on the part of the driver."
50. Therefore, this issue is decided in favour of petitioner and against the respondents.
ISSUE NO. 2:
51. In the case of Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar & Anr. ACJ 2011 (Vol. I), following principles were laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court for determining compensation payable to road traffic accident victims: MACT No. 118/12/09 Sh. Madhav Prasad Maurya v. Sh. Kulvir Singh & Ors. Page No. 10of19
(i) The compensation payable to the claimant who is a victim of road accident should, to the extent possible, fully and adequately restore the claimant to the position prior to the accident. The object of awarding damages is to make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong done as far as money can do so, in a fair, reasonable and equatable manner.
(ii) Compensation payable in injury cases is payable under two heads. They are pecuniary damages (special damages) and non pecuniary damages. Pecuniary damages have three sub heads which are : (i) expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food and miscellaneous expenditure.
(ii) (a) Loss of earning ( and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising of loss of earning during the period of treatment and (b) loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability (iii) Future medical expenses. Nonpecuniary damages (General Damage) are (iv) damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of injuries
(v) loss of amenities (and /or loss of prospects of marriage) and (vi) loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity).
(iii) In routine personal injury cases compensation is awarded only under heads (i), (ii)
(a) and (iv). It is only in serious cases of injury, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the claimant, that compensation is granted under any of the heads (ii)
(b), (iii) and (vi) relating to loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospectus of marriage) and loss of expectation of life.
52. As per Ex. PW1/1 which is discharge summary of Jai MACT No. 118/12/09 Sh. Madhav Prasad Maurya v. Sh. Kulvir Singh & Ors. Page No. 11of19 Prakash Narain Apex Trauma Centre, petitioner had remained admitted in that hospital from 21.03.09 to 27.03.09 and was diagnosed as a case of severe head injury with B/L tentorial bleed.
53. During his treatment, he had developed bradycardia.
54. At the time of discharge, it was written on the discharge summary that in view of severe head injury, prognosis is guarded and patient needs regular nursing care and follow up in NS OPD. Petitioner may have seizures, headache, vomiting which will need urgent attention and review.
55. As per Ex. PW1/9, vision right eye is absent.
56. The treatment has continued at least from 21.03.09 which is the date of accident till 15.08.10.
57. This is evident from treatment record of Government Hospitals where petitioner was treated from time to time.
58. The severity of injuries suffered by petitioner were such that he suffered 30% permanent visual disability and 10% cosmetic disability.
59. Therefore, for Pain and Suffering, petitioner is given a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/.
60. The treatment of petitioner was in a Government Hospital but few receipts for purchase of medicines etc. totaling Rs. 28,372/ are on record. This is an amount which petitioner is entitled to receive as compensation for Treatment Cost.
61. There is no evidence about income of the petitioner. There is no evidence of his educational qualifications. Therefore, for loss of income, reliance is placed on minimum rates of wages payable MACT No. 118/12/09 Sh. Madhav Prasad Maurya v. Sh. Kulvir Singh & Ors. Page No. 12of19 in Delhi to an unskilled workman which were Rs. 3,934/ per month.
62. In view of the fact that treatment record of petitioner from 21.03.09 to 15.06.10 is available on record, the petitioner would have remained out of work due to these injuries at least for one year.
63. Therefore, for Loss of Wages, he is given a compensation of Rs. 47,208/.
64. Petitioner is a labourer and he has suffered 30% permanent visual disability. Eyes are an important part of the body and loss of income due to this disability can be assessed as 30%.
65. In view of Gulam Nabi Bhat v. Md. Arman Ali & Ors. MAC APP. No. 335/09 dt. 07.08.12 decided by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, 30% is to be added towards future prospects. When 30% is added to Rs. 3,934/, the total assumed income of petitioner would be Rs. 5,114/ per month and 30% of the same would be Rs. 1,534/. At least this is the future loss which petitioner would suffer due to this accident.
66. Petitioner has stated in his evidence that he is 38 years of age. No objection was raised with regard to his age in the cross examination. Therefore, for deciding this claim petition, age of petitioner is treated as 38 years. Therefore, multiplier that would be applicable will be of 15. Thus calculated, the Loss suffered by petitioner in Future would be Rs. 2,76,120/ (i.e. Rs. 1,534/ x 12 x 15).
67. Petitioner has suffered 10% cosmetic disability due to fixed convergent squint i.e. invert deviation of the eye. Besides this, petitioner's right pinna was also deformed in the accident. Therefore, for Disfigurement, petitioner is given another compensation of Rs.
MACT No. 118/12/09 Sh. Madhav Prasad Maurya v. Sh. Kulvir Singh & Ors. Page No. 13of19 25,000/.
68. Petitioner is also entitled to a compensation of Rs. 7,500/ for Conveyance Charges and Rs. 7,500/ for Special Diet.
69. Resultantly, total compensation payable to petitioner would be Rs. 4,91,700/.
70. This compensation shall be payable with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition which is 08.07.09 till its deposit.
71. For granting interest @ 9% per annum reliance can be placed on the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Dhaneshwari & Anr. v. Tejeshwar Singh & Ors.: MAC APP. 997/11 dated 19.03.2012 where in para 72 and 73 the Hon'ble High Court has held as under: "72. In Rubi (Chandra) Dutta v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2011) 11 SCC 269, the interest granted by the National Commission @ 9% was upheld by the Supreme Court. In Sant Singh v. Sukhdev Singh (2011) 11 SCC 632, interest @ 9% per annum was awarded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar and Anr. 2011 (1) SCC 343, the interest @ 9% p.a. awarded by the Claims Tribunal was approved. In Arvind Kr. Mishra v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (2010) 10 SCC 254, interest @ 9% p.a. was awarded on the enhanced amount of compensation.
73. In these circumstances, I would also follow the Bank rate of interest and would award interest @ 9% p.a. on the enhanced amount."
72. In the case of Sheela Devi & Anr. Vs. Naib Singh & Ors. : MAC Appeal No. 91/05 dated 11.05.2012 the Hon'ble High Court MACT No. 118/12/09 Sh. Madhav Prasad Maurya v. Sh. Kulvir Singh & Ors. Page No. 14of19 has held as under: "7. The Claims Tribunal has awarded interest @ 6% per annum which is on a lower side. The Apex Court has awarded interest @ 9% per annum, in the recent case of MCD V. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy, AIR 2012 SC 100. Following the judgment of the Apex Court, the rate of interest is enhanced from 6% per annum to 9% per annum."
73. Next question is which of the respondents is liable to pay this compensation to the petitioner.
74. Defence of insurance company is that the insurer had produced a policy of IFFCO TOKIO w.e.f. 18.03.08 to 17.03.09 and on the basis of this, the insurance company had given further insurance to the offending vehicle from 18.03.09 to 17.03.10.
75. It is the contention of insurance company that the previous insurance policy was found to be fake.
76. Therefore, insurer had procured insurance fraudulently and therefore insurance cover given to the insured vehicle by respondent no. 3 has become void abinitio and insurance company has no liability to pay the compensation.
77. The evidence to show that the previous insurance policy produced by the insured at the time of insurance of offending vehicle was fake is the evidence of one Sh. Sanjeev Arora who is an Investigator.
78. This Investigator was requested to verify the cover note no. 36010906 issued by IFFCO TOKIO, 10 Shahid Jeet Singh Marg.
79. This request is Ex. R3W1/1.
80. This is a photocopy of Email sent by one Sh. Rakesh MACT No. 118/12/09 Sh. Madhav Prasad Maurya v. Sh. Kulvir Singh & Ors. Page No. 15of19 Sonker to this Investigator, Sh. Sanjeev Arora.
81. This Email is not proved in accordance with law as no witness has appeared in the witness box to conform to the requirements of law to prove this electronic mail.
82. Who is Sh. Rakesh Sonkar in Reliance Gen. Ins. Company Ltd. is not known from this document.
83. Further, R3W1 Sh. Sanjeev Arora, proved request given to IFFCO TOKIO for verifying the cover note in question. This request Ex. R3W1/2 does not show any signatures of any official of IFFCO TOKIO to show that the same was given to IFFCO TOKIO for verification.
84. Therefore, respondent no. 3 has not proved that any request was given to IFFCO TOKIO to verify the genuineness or otherwise of cover note in question.
85. R3W1/3 is photocopy of cover note given by insurer to respondent no. 3 where there are two notings. First noting is by some official of IFFCO TOKIO Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd., 10, Shahid Jeet Singh Marg, where it is noted that the said cover note does not belong to their branch (FA I16).
86. Who is the signatory of this note? What is his name? What is his designation is not clear from this document.
87. Same is the position of another note on this very document given by Naraina Branch.
88. Even the Investigator did not disclose who was Branch Manager whom he had requested to verify the cover note and whether the Branch Manager had signed the report in his presence or MACT No. 118/12/09 Sh. Madhav Prasad Maurya v. Sh. Kulvir Singh & Ors. Page No. 16of19 not.
89. No witness was examined from IFFCO TOKIO to prove that the cover note was fake.
90. Therefore, no reliance can be placed on Ex. R3W1/3 to return a finding that the insured has misrepresented insurance company by producing a fake cover note of IFFCO TOKIO. It is not proved that cover note of insurance company is fake.
91. Notice to declare the policy as void abinitio was sent on 08.06.11 which is after lapse of tenure of the insurance because the tenure of cover note given by respondent no. 3 was from 18.03.09 to 17.03.10.
92. Even if, insurance company had sent any notice on 08.06.11 to the insured declaring the cover note as void it will have no consequence for the purpose of deciding this case because the cover note had already lapsed on 17.03.10.
93. Moreover, even if, it is presumed that the cover note was fake, though it is not so established on the records, whether insured was himself a victim of fraud or he himself was responsible for producing a fake insurance cover note is not proved. It cannot be ruled out that insured may have been duped by the agent. In absence of any such evidence, any conclusion in this regard would be only on the basis of conjectures and surmises.
94. Furthermore, even if the prior insurance cover was fake, even then, respondent no. 3 cannot be absolved from its liability because the insurance commenced w.e.f. 18.03.09 but the accident had taken place on 21.03.09.
MACT No. 118/12/09 Sh. Madhav Prasad Maurya v. Sh. Kulvir Singh & Ors. Page No. 17of19
95. In case agent of respondent no. 3 issued ante dated cover note, although there is no such evidence, then this insurance company has to bear its consequences being the principal.
96. Therefore, the compensation would be payable by insurance company within 30 days from today under intimation to the petitioner by registered post.
97. Petitioner is a poor man. He is an illiterate person. His compensation is to be protected.
98. The compensation would be deposited directly by insurance company with State Bank of India, Dwarka Court, New Delhi in the name of SBI A/c. Madhav Prasad Maurya.
99. Out of this compensation, 10% of the amount with proportionate interest shall be released in his Saving Bank Account to be opened at State Bank of India, Dwarka, New Delhi.
100. Rest of the compensation would be deposited in 10 FDRs for a period 1 to 10 years and petitioner would be given monthly interest on these deposits in his Saving Bank Account regularly.
101. No loan or advance will be given against this deposit. No cheque book will be given to the petitioner.
102. Original FDRs will be retained by the bank and photocopies will be given to the petitioner.
103. Pass Book will also be given to the petitioner.
104. FDR will not be encashed prematurely without leave of this Court.
105. Petitioner shall be at liberty to get the FDRs and Saving Bank Account transferred to any nationalised bank of his MACT No. 118/12/09 Sh. Madhav Prasad Maurya v. Sh. Kulvir Singh & Ors. Page No. 18of19 choice subject to similar terms and conditions as are noted herein above.
106. Petitioner shall cooperate with the bank by providing requisite documents and by completing required formalities for opening Saving Bank and FDR Accounts.
107. Copy of award be given dasti to all the parties.
108. A copy of this award be also sent to State Bank of India, Dwarka Court, New Delhi.
109. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open Court On the 21st Day of September, 2012.
(ARUN BHARDWAJ) PRESIDING OFFICER MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNALII DWARKA COURTS: NEW DELHI MACT No. 118/12/09 Sh. Madhav Prasad Maurya v. Sh. Kulvir Singh & Ors. Page No. 19of19